| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
An update on this story. "Female suicide bombers kill dozens in Baghdad markets," from CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Female suicide bombers blew themselves up Friday at two markets in Baghdad, killing at least 64 people and wounding more than 100, authorities said.
[...]
In both bombings, the attackers were wearing suicide vests, according to Qasim Atta, a spokesman for the Baghdad security plan.
Atta told state TV that both women were mentally disabled and their explosives were remotely detonated.
The Al Ghazil pet market struck in the first attack is a popular destination where people buy and sell cats, dogs, monkeys and other animals. Attackers have struck the market on Fridays -- its busiest day -- several times in the last year or so.
Posted by Marisol at February 1, 2008 9:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
...Islamic social services for the handicapped or mentally ill is a thing of wonder...
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 1, 2008 9:56 AM
Both female mass murderers were mentally disabled? I wonder if it was due to brain injury sustained in the course of their regular beatings...
Let's see... The bombs were remotely detonated. Now, it seems to me that, just this week, I read right here that it wasn't legal to kill women and children in "jihad". Have the rules changed again?
Can I wear white sneakers after Labor Day? What's the fashion, here? I'm so confused!
Posted by: Abscedere at February 1, 2008 9:58 AM
Somethind like this is hard to believe. Where is the moral outrage over such tactics, welcome to the world of islam. What fools we have become.
Posted by: AMartinez at February 1, 2008 10:01 AM
Standard Operating Procedure. Done by the PLO, or whatever its constitute groups are called -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad, No-Name Terrorist Group -- all the time. Or at least they have tried. Often the Israelis, sensing what is to come, have managed to defuse the mindless time-bomb and save the innocent would-be mass-murderer's life.
Posted by: Hugh at February 1, 2008 10:04 AM
The sad thing is, it's not hard to believe this at all. Islamists are the lowest slime on the face of the world, that they would use the mentally handicapped, and children, as suicide bombers. It's not the first time, no surprise here. Islamists are inhuman.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at February 1, 2008 10:05 AM
Let's see:
Husband is tired of wife.
Husband complains to inlaws that wife is unfaithful.
In-laws are distressed, family honor you know.
In-laws go to imam, imam gives them lecture and explosive belt.
In laws present solution to distraught husband.
Husband and in-laws relay decisions to wife, and instructs her to be there at eleven-o'clock sharp.
Wife complies, taking out man who lives next door while he was shopping in market.
Husband marries next door widow, who he has seceretely been having an affair with.
End.
at February 1, 2008 10:15 AM
One has to wonder about a religion that can be misunderstood to allow this.
Posted by: David England at February 1, 2008 10:34 AM
Divorce-Muslim-Arab-style is imaginatively constructed by an aptly-named poster at 10:15 a.m. He, and others, might enjoy a less-bloody variant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZjLdseSUnM
Posted by: Hugh at February 1, 2008 10:38 AM
I guess if this was Iran amanutjob would be saying 'see we have no mentally ill people like you guys.'
Posted by: Aunt Bea at February 1, 2008 10:40 AM
Talk about the darkside. That is just plain evil.
But -- why Fridays? What would be the significance of Fridays in the repeated terrorist bombings?
/disingenuous question
Posted by: Goob at February 1, 2008 10:41 AM
"Atta told state TV that both women were mentally disabled . . . ."
Islam does have that effect on people, both women and men. Just as one can disable a car or TV by removing or cutting some of the wiring, it seems that Islam cuts some of the wiring in the brain.
at February 1, 2008 10:49 AM
Terrible people to do something like this. Islam is evil.
OT
Powderkeg in Germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,532423,00.html
at February 1, 2008 10:50 AM
"Let's see... The bombs were remotely detonated. Now, it seems to me that, just this week, I read right here that it wasn't legal to kill women and children in "jihad". Have the rules changed again?"
Posted by: Abscedere
The rules were probably changed by one of the famous "abrogations" -- a minor one, often overlooked.
at February 1, 2008 11:02 AM
"The Al Ghazil pet market struck in the first attack is a popular destination where people buy and sell cats, dogs, monkeys and other animals."
Will PETA members become outraged at this wanton slaughter of animals? Probably not, because they will contextualize it as the "understandable" lashing out of an "oppressed" and "occupied" class of lovely Third World perpetual victims; or if they do, they will place all the blame on Bush.
at February 1, 2008 11:03 AM
46:16.
They are those from whom We shall accept the best of their deeds and overlook their evil deeds. (They shall be) among the dwellers of Paradise, a promise of truth, which they have been promised.
at February 1, 2008 11:13 AM
So much for stopping muslim immigration. As soon as a politician speaks out he is cast out.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,529527,00.html
Posted by: Borg at February 1, 2008 11:26 AM
Here is an article about women suicide bombers.
How I Hoped to Turn My Body into Slivers to Tear the Sons of Zion to Pieces, and to Knock with Their Skulls on the Gates of Paradise"
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA41908
at February 1, 2008 11:40 AM
From the Memri article:
The souls of the martyrs dwell inside the bellies of green birds [that roost] on chandeliers hanging from the royal throne [of Allah in Paradise]. They roam freely in Paradise, and then come to roost on the chandeliers... Sister... [think] what a [wonderful] life that is, how [wonderful] Paradise is, and what we miss living here [in this world]... You know that a martyr does not die. He lives, and will never know death, for it is said [in Koran 2:153]: 'And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, [they] live, but you do not perceive [it].'
Ah, to live inside the belly of a bird...what a life!
/can you believe anyone could go for this?
at February 1, 2008 11:51 AM
This is so utterly stomach-turning that words fail me.
However - using women as suicide bombers whose 'bombs' are detonated by remote control is not exactly new. Weren't the female Chechen terorists also wearing belts with explosives which had to be detonated by remote control, during the siege at that theatre in Moscow a few years ago?
However, using 'mentally disabled' women must be the most despicable act yet.
Clearly, the jihadists are not noble fighters, they are the most lowly cowards creeping on the face of this earth.
Now I'm looking forward to hear the jihadist 'justification' for this sickening attack.
Posted by: Calon Lan at February 1, 2008 11:57 AM
Given the hideousness of Islamic society in general, and of Arab society in particular (coincidence?), one might require a more detailed definition of "mentally disabled" before inferring anything about these women, or accepting any Arab version of this thing. It would hardly surprise me to learn that these women were simply judged to be "disabled" by another of those cruel, wicked and distorted methods so often seen used by Arabs. Arabs are, after all, people who believe that mass murderers are "maryrs", that evil is the sublimest manifestation of God's will on earth, that killing mothers, daughters, and sisters is "honorable", that killing and terrorizing innocents is noble, and that Islam embodies everything that is good. It is a truly demented society, and virtually everything Arabs say must be scrutinized and filtered for lies, distortions, and evil nonsense.
Posted by: jsla at February 1, 2008 11:58 AM
I thought that it was ok with Allah to blow up the mentally handicapped.
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at February 1, 2008 11:58 AM
I'll say it again - is there any other religion in human history that used such tactics?
Maybe, just maybe, it's not a religion.
Maybe, just maybe, it's a political movement.........
As author Frank Hebert wrote:
"When religion and politics ride in the same cart, nothing can stand in their path."
But he also wrote:
"The fall from a high place is sudden and steep."
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 1, 2008 12:10 PM
Every Day we see the limits of depravity of the jihadist mind descend further into the inferno.
When will we face the truth that we cannot defend ourselves from the ivory towers of our enlightened liberal culture, but will have to descend into that inferno ourselves if we are to survive.
at February 1, 2008 12:23 PM
Yes, where is Naseem?
There must be some way of excusing, explaining, defending or abrogating this incident.
Maybe not.
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 1, 2008 12:26 PM
I wonder if Salman Hossain, of Toronto, has "enjoy[ed] watching the blood flow" from these 64 (or 73 acording to a later report) Iraqi Moslems. killed by their Moslem "sisters"?
Posted by: ebonystone at February 1, 2008 12:27 PM
I don't know if things can get any lower. This is the lowest of the low, absolutely diabolical.
Posted by: Lost in the Hazel at February 1, 2008 12:28 PM
"I don't know if things can get any lower. This is the lowest of the low, absolutely diabolical."
Putting panties on the heads of terrorists?
Posted by: Elric66 at February 1, 2008 12:32 PM
Atta told state TV that both women were mentally disabled and their explosives were remotely detonated.
........................
So hideous you would think even other Muslims would be appalled.
More:
The Al Ghazil pet market struck in the first attack is a popular destination where people buy and sell cats, dogs, monkeys and other animals. Attackers have struck the market on Fridays -- its busiest day -- several times in the last year or so.
.........................
So attacking the pet markets is not new--this was just worse than previous hits. And the attacks have come on Fridays--is it just because, as cited in the article, that Friday is the busiest day? Or is it that the Islamic sabbath is seen as a good day to strike at something--enjoying the company of pets--that is considered by many hard-line Muslims to be "un-Islamic"?
at February 1, 2008 12:33 PM
I thought all suicide bombers were mentally disabled?
But that's probably just me suffering a touch of sanity :)
Posted by: Henrik at February 1, 2008 12:38 PM
In a war, the aim is to win. This is a clever use of resources. Do we want to win?
Posted by: ReligionofPeas at February 1, 2008 12:46 PM
No need for Naseem to post; we can generate a Naseem post ourselves:
Assalamau Laikum all,
yes, this is sad day when two womens, even retardeds, have to kill so many peoples, but it could be said they were push by Bush to do it. As you know I am Ahmadi and we do not believe the Deen is advanced this way. If you kuffr will stop focssing on the negative and look to the positive in Islam, the true Tawheed and Wudud and not the desperate measures of these sad womens, you will see the light as Wuslims
and Allah Tall'ah knows best
Posted by: Naseem
at February 1, 2008 12:51 PM
Excellent. Keep it up.
Posted by: Hugh at February 1, 2008 12:59 PM
CAIR rallies for Gaza, but not one peep about this atrocity, or any others for that matter. What's that say?
Posted by: Sounder at February 1, 2008 1:00 PM
Islam and being mentally unstable go hand in hand, don't they? Guess the guys who strapped the belts on these women who were carrying the remote control were considered the more 'sane' of the group. Right.
Posted by: champ
at February 1, 2008 1:03 PM
The Idea that the mentally ill are blessed by Allah in that they can redeem themselves through acts of martyrdom must be irresistible to some religious fanatics. This has most likely happened before. Think how easy it would be to convince a Down's Syndrome person to wander into a crowd of women and children wandering around a market. Think of the warmth and sympathy afforded to that handicapped person by the women and children. Perhaps a guiding hand, a smile and then.. boom as the button is pressed remotely.
Truly such depravity is mind boggling.
How many other suicide bombers are coerced into producing what is vaunted as "an act of martyrdom" but is in fact little else than depraved coercion.
wait for the minimisers and little helpers draw moral equivalence between Hitler's treatment of the handicapped.
it HAS happened before-
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/02/03/is_choosiness_an_option_yet.php
at February 1, 2008 1:09 PM
I just heard that both were afflicted with Down Syndrome. Perfect for following simple directions trustingly and without question, and for not being suspected in advance. There's no hell hot enough for these animals.
Posted by: BunrattyBill at February 1, 2008 1:21 PM
Since most Muslims are peaceful, and don't approve of terror and volence in the name of Islam, now we will see millions of Muslims streaming into the streets across the Muslim world deploring the utter barbarity of this atrocity. Imams will preach fiery sermons condemning the beasts who committed it to the most condign punishments Allah can devise. The people in the neighborhood where the terrorists live and worship will be so utterly revulsed that the perpetrators will be turned in, and their associates and Imams and sheiks and financiers also will be repudiated.
Right?
Right?
Posted by: jsla at February 1, 2008 1:40 PM
And the parents no doubt handed over their children to bomb handlers. The parents no longer have to feed or house them. Someone probably gave the family some money, so all is well in Islam.
Jihadi's again have proven that they are bottom feeders. No savage act is beyond them...
at February 1, 2008 1:49 PM
How can a Jihadist best demonstrate the noble practices and customs as detailed in the holy Qur'an:
Murder someone who doesn't follow the Qur'an exactly like you do? Not savage enough.
Mass murder people who don't follow the Qur'an exactly like you do? Not heinous enough.
Mass murder innocents regardless of how they follow the Qur'an? Not deprived enough.
Suicide Bombing Mass Murder of innocents? Still not horrific enough.
Female Suicide Bombing Mass Murder of innocents? Hmmm...getting close but still lacking that certain pizazz that Allah likes.
Handicapped Female Suicide Bombing Mass Murder of innocents? Almost there.
Remote-controlled Handicapped Female Suicide Bomb Mass Murder of Innocents? Yes, Yes, that's a perfect way to show the glory of Islam!
at February 1, 2008 1:54 PM
The hell with Muslims. Were any dogs hurt?
Posted by: poetcomic1 at February 1, 2008 2:02 PM
I don't mean to be cruel but, I'd like to see the look on the face of the next martyr when these two show up as part of his 72 virgin reward package.
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at February 1, 2008 2:03 PM
Tsk, tsk. The human race. Will muslims EVER qualify?
Posted by: allahlovesporkchops at February 1, 2008 2:21 PM
"I'd like to see the look on the face of the next martyr when these two show up as part of his 72 virgin reward package."
Actually, since according to the Sunna (Bukhari) Mohammed said that most (Muslim) women end up in Hell (Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301), this presents a problem for Allah as the Superfly Pimp on High: how will he provide 72 virgins for each Muslim man in Paradise, if he is damning most of the women to Hell?
The solution seems to be in Koran 56:35-36:
Lo! We have created them a (new) creation. And made them virgins...
The interpretation of this solution that Ibn Kathir provides in his tafsir (exegesis) on the Koran would not work: he conjectures (based upon hadith traditions and his own reasoning) that
That is, Allah will recreate the elderly women and make them virgins...
This wouldn't solve the problem of the great Virgin Shortage in Paradise, since most elderly women would also be damned to Hell.
The tafsir of the al-Jalalayn provides the solution that makes sense, since anything is possible for Allah: Allah will simply create virgin girls anew for those men in Paradise, girls who have never really lived a life but came into existence suddenly for the express purpose of being the sex slaves of men for eternity; sort of like sex androids.
Verily We have created them with an [unmediated] creation, namely, the wide-eyed houris, [We created them] without the process of birth...
(Furthermore, the al-Jalalayn tafsir informs us that each of these newly created virgins will, by Allah's power, revert to virginity after each sexual copulation.)
at February 1, 2008 2:38 PM
So I guess to get ahead of this a little. We need to pass laws against outdoor petting zoos. And Down Syndrome women/men/childern, especially wearing head to foot clothing. Let's see what else? Oh, how about football games (Stupid Bowl) or any public gathering. Or maybe a law on, public clothing like loose fitting and bulky over cloths, coats and burqas (especially burqas!). But sadly these are just addressing the symptoms not the disease.
On a completely different line of thought, is the statement that these women were mentally off. How would they know that? Did they talk to someone who knew them? Can we believe anything that comes out of the mouth of these people (war is deceit). I would even question the number of dead. I would question everything when it comes too the religion of lies. I don't doubt that someone went into a crowded market and blew themselves up. I would question the motivation. Talking about the poor woman (if that is what they were) is a waste of time.
Proverbs 8:12
Before destruction a man's heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor.
Jeremiah 17:9
The human heart is most deceitful and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?
امثال 8:12
قبل تدمير الرجل القلب هو متغطرس ، ولكن قبل ان يذهب الشرف التواضع.
إرميا 17:9
قلب الانسان هو الاكثر خادعه وياءسه الشرس. الذي يعرف حقا كيف سيئة وم
at February 1, 2008 2:41 PM
OT, but important.
Why we should be more careful about who is in authority...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013103458.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
A Fairfax County police sergeant pleaded guilty yesterday to illegally using police computers to check license plate numbers for a friend, not knowing that the friend was the target of a federal investigation and that the license plates were on cars used to surveil the friend.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 1, 2008 2:45 PM
It's all vaguely reminiscent of Conrad's novel, 'The Secret agent' where a man attempts to use his wife's mentally disabled young brother to plant a bomb at the Greenwich Observatory but the boy is killed when it goes off prematurely.Hitchcock made a classic film based on it.
Posted by: wallyUK at February 1, 2008 2:59 PM
Gee, I wonder why everyone here is so "islamophobic" after reading this story.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at February 1, 2008 3:04 PM
The link given at 2:45 p.m. is to this story. I thought it should be posted in full:
Fairfax Officer Admits Misusing Computers
Plea Entered in Illegal License Checks
By Tom Jackman
Friday, February 1, 2008; Page B01
"A Fairfax County police sergeant pleaded guilty yesterday to illegally using police computers to check license plate numbers for a friend, not knowing that the friend was the target of a federal investigation and that the license plates were on cars used to surveil the friend.
Sgt. Weiss Rasool, 30, joined the county police in 2000 and is assigned to patrol the McLean district. He has been suspended with pay pending the outcome of an internal investigation, Officer Don Gotthardt said.
During a brief hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Rasool pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of unauthorized computer access. The maximum sentence is one year in prison, though sentencing guidelines call for probation or up to six months.
In a statement of facts filed by the government and signed by Rasool, authorities said Rasool used the Fairfax police computer system June 10, 2005, to access the Virginia Criminal Information Network and the National Crime Information Center to check three license plates. After learning that the plates were registered to a leasing company -- which authorities say Rasool had reason to believe was providing vehicles to federal investigators -- Rasool told his friend that the plates had been traced to a company, not an individual.
That phone call was being monitored by federal agents on a wiretap authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, court records show. The subject of the surveillance has since been convicted of felonies in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, but a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office declined to identify him yesterday.
The agents could tell from the phone call that Rasool and their target had spoken before, court records state. And because Rasool was not conducting a police investigation or other official business, he was breaking the law by accessing the state and federal databases.
In addition, authorities said, Rasool checked his own name and others in the national crime database more than 15 times to determine whether he or other individuals were registered in the Violent Crime and Terrorist Offender File, also a federal violation when not done as part of a police investigation. Rasool is a native of Afghanistan and a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Outside the courtroom, Rasool declined to discuss specifics of the case. But he said he had not intended to harm an investigation or damage the United States.
"I couldn't serve in the military because of family issues," Rasool said. "But this country's done so much for me. I will defend it, protect it and serve it until the last drop of my blood."
Rasool's attorney, James W. Hundley, said Rasool "didn't divulge any information he shouldn't divulge." He said a member of Rasool's mosque asked the police officer to "check license plates he was concerned about" on vehicles he suspected had been following him.
Hundley said Rasool told his friend that he would be able to provide only limited information, mainly whether the cars were registered to companies or individuals. He found they were registered to a company, Hundley said, and left a voice-mail message to that effect.
The cars apparently were being used for federal surveillance, Hundley said. He said that he did not know the name of the person being watched and that Rasool "had no reason to believe this person was the subject of an investigation."
Rasool only recently learned of the investigation, Hundley said, apparently after the target was convicted of immigration offenses and deported.
Hundley said Rasool was checking the federal terrorism "watch list to see if he or others close to him were incorrectly listed. None of them were, and he never divulged it. And anyone that was on the watch list, he didn't divulge that either."
Rasool is scheduled to be sentenced April 15."
at February 1, 2008 3:17 PM
*If* it is true that the women were mentally disabled (I concur with 'Im.mad.as.HELL) above, in doubting most details of any report that depends solely on the word of Muslims) then - among other things - this looks like human sacrifice.
I begin to see why one of the regular posters here, has been claiming for some time that Islam is a de facto human sacrifice cult.
I began to wonder that, too, when I read 'Legacy of Jihad'. The ghastly pointlessness, magnitude and indeed wastefulness of the perpetual mass murders - killings so extensive that the conquerors often shot themselves in the foot by permanently depleting the populations of the conquered lands, such that the productivity of those lands never truly recovered, and the conquerors received less food, goods and jizya money than they might have got had they left more peasants and townspeople alive - began, after a while, to seem as if it were an end in itself, the real raison d'etre of jihad.
Then, if there are no dhimmis around as a source of victims (all those pogroms and lynchings, justified by flimsy excuses, or even by deliberate lies); or if it can't get across the border to kill unbelievers; then we see Islam dividing itself against itself, so as to be able to continue killing, killing, killing.
'Honor' killings seem to me to fit the 'human sacrifice' pattern, too. So often, just like the attacks upon the dhimmi populations that punctuate the history of the umma, they are performed on the basis of flimsy excuses or even rumors and lies - as if, at bottom, any excuse will do to pick a victim and kil her.
I suspect that in their heart of hearts there are some within the Ummah - like Ahmadinejad - who want WMDs not so that they may conquer and rule the earth, but in order that they may press a few buttons and in that instant DESTROY the entire earth and all life upon it. The ultimate offering of blood and death on the altar of 'allah' the war god; the ultimate suicide-mass murder combination.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 1, 2008 3:21 PM
These stories are so full of shit. How do these people know if the bombs were remotely detonated? The Iraqi's have no intelligence authorities, they have no law and order, how the hell am I supposed to believe that they knew these woman were mentally disabled. As if Iraq has medical records on it's citizen's. Once upon a time it did but the chances of that now is about zero. And it doesn't make sense; why are they going to bomb a market of all places? As much as I don't condone the act, for them to go to a market to do it seems unrealistic.
Conclusion- another full of shit story designed to tarnish the image of Islam, but I ain't buying it.
at February 1, 2008 3:24 PM
cantor,
That's good analysis. The only logical conclusion is Allah's virginal sex androids. Was it John Adams who mentioned the debased spiritual life when speaking of Mohammed?
Indeed. Robert put it in one of his books somewhere. But searching is faster...
“Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Capitals in original)...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” Adams concluded solemnly, “As the essential principle of his [Muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000095.html
at February 1, 2008 3:24 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Female suicide bombers blew themselves up Friday at two markets in Baghdad, killing at least 64 people and wounding more than 100, authorities said. [...] In both bombings, the attackers were wearing suicide vests, according to Qasim Atta, a spokesman for the Baghdad security plan.Atta told state TV that both women were mentally disabled and their explosives were remotely detonated.
Mentally disabled? Their explosives were remotely detonated?
In other words, these two were murdered along with the 64 others that died with them.
Is anyone fed-up with islam yet or are we still tripping over one another to protect the rights of these ... using the term loosely ... "people?"
Posted by: witness at February 1, 2008 3:33 PM
Borg,
I read the der spiegel article and it linked to an editorial written previously. The last two paragraphs raised more questions:
The country, or at least the west of it, has done an impressive job of atoning for the crimes of the Nazis, but that history will continue to cloud Germany's national identity, and surely deters immigrants from rushing to embrace any kind of German-ness.
Is it unreasonable to ask people who don't want to embrace "German-ness" why they chose to emigrate there? If they came for the work, is it unfair to expect them to give something in return, like loyalty?
So instead of telling its immigrants not to slaughter sheep in their kitchens, Germany would be well advised to be nicer to its immigrants. Like it or not, they're here to stay.
"be well advised to be nicer"? Is that a threat? Who says they're here to stay? Does Germany have no right to expel immigrants who endanger society (slaughtering sheep in the kitchen might pose a danger to public health or to private property) or is getting into Germany a guarantee that you can stay there for life without assuming any responsibility toward the community that accepted you?
Posted by: PMK at February 1, 2008 3:33 PM
thesaracen,
That's some great analysis. No wonder the Islamic world is eight hundred years behind in science.
"It can't be true because it makes Islam look bad."
You make medieval scholastics look like Stephen Hawking.
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2008 3:36 PM
Saracen~
Hold youself, dude.
A simple DNA test can confirm Down syndrome.
A good foresnsic evaluation can detect whether the bomb was remotely detonated.
Islam needs to learn that there relly is such a thing as bad publicity.
Posted by: skevin at February 1, 2008 3:38 PM
Probably witnesses and American intelligence provided the information. But Muslims never let investigation or reason get in the way of a good conpiracy theory.
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2008 3:42 PM
Islam hits a new low, using the mentally disabled to blow up by remote control. Where is it in their Koran that using such advanced radio technology is halal?
If they do this with the blessings of their Allah, the All Knowing, the Merciful and Compassionate, then their god is a Monster, and their warlord (pbuh) who brought them to this hideous monstrosity is a mad mass murderer of the lowest form. This is all from the ‘best people’ who look down on the rest of humanity with arrogance? Shame, shame. But they have no shame, no remorse, just the lowest form of mindless murder for their Monster. Not a religion, not at all a religion, but a Cult of Death.
My heart goes out to those poor Muslimas who were strapped with bombs… to kill men, women, and children… and innocent animals.
Where is Naseem when we need her to explain the wonderful attributes of her ‘religion of…’? Scratch that. She will not utter a peep. No Da'wa today Naseem?
at February 1, 2008 3:50 PM
Al Qaeda (jihad groups) target(s) markets because they believe the Iraqis are traitors to Islam for not fighting to the last disabled woman and child against the Americans. They have had some debates over this very issue, intercepted by intelligence.
Then you have the positive press coverage such strikes generate in AFP, AP, and Reuters. They tout the number killed as if they fight back, and spin the strike as a blow against the Americans.
So, thesaracen, in actual fact it's the positive press for the mujahideen which enables and encourages them to do this. It's your internal sense of right and wrong, apparently not yet completely snuffed out by Islam, which says this is wrong.
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2008 3:50 PM
Watched French news TF1 and France 3, both detailed the attacks, both made sure that they mentioned that it was a blow to the surge and to the USA, neither mentioned that they were Downs Syndrome people used in this appling way by terrorists. They did not even say that most of the victims were children.
The MSM, its not what you report its what you do not report and yes they have past history in doing this, they used a male Dwons Syndrome during the elections and that hardly got noted in the news either.
As for this:
"Conclusion- another full of shit story designed to tarnish the image of Islam, but I ain't buying it."
They are only following the example of the perfect man, of course you are right thesaracen, in your eyes nothing like this could tarnish your religion. The terrorists were following the example of the perfect man in every way.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 1, 2008 3:59 PM
Beagle - thanks for the John Quincy Adams quote, which bears repetition, for the benefit of any new visitors to the site.
When one bears in mind the kind of person John Quincy Adams was - a lifelong campaigner against slavery, a person intelligent, clear-headed, humane and compassionate - his final judgement upon Islam, that it may only be dispelled and annihilated by the use of force, is all the more weighty.
Winston S Churchill agreed with him. In "The River War" (the suppression of jihad in the Sudan in the 19th century) he writes:
"No terms but fight or death were offered. No reparation or apology could be made. . . The red light of retribution played on the bayonets and the lances, and civilization—elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise—here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness, and rejecting all other courses, offered only the arbitration of the sword."
Neither Adams nor Churchill loved war in and of itself; they loved Civilisation, peace and life, justice and freedom.
But, they recognised in Islam on the march something fundamentally inimical to humanity, and to everything good; they faced the facts: it simply had to be fought.
Psychologist M Scott Peck, in 'People of the Lie', was driven to remarkably similar conclusions in his reflections upon human evil.
Reflecting on a situation in which he had had to act to rescue a child, a patient of his, from being deliberately destroyed by its parents, he writes:
"I would still envision it as my initial task to rescue 'Bobby' from his parents, and I would still resort, as I did then, to the use of temporal power to accomplish that task.
"I have learned nothing in twenty years [as a psychologist] that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar".
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 1, 2008 4:06 PM
Sad sad, how long is this madness going to continue?
The only American candidate for the presidency with an understanding of the problems, Tom Tancredo, has dropped out, so what's next? Several years more of suicidal denial of the multi-cultural illusion?
I like T.T.'s views, here's an interview with him where he's allowed to explain his views in-depth:
I wonder if he has had some sort of impact on the discussion in the US anyway. I hope so.
Posted by: seville844 at February 1, 2008 4:15 PM
"These stories are so full of shit."
Spoken by someone who thinks that all JW posters and Robert himself is "full of shit". Thesaracen recently stated that we are all full of it, and he doesn't believe that there is anything wrong with Islam; so of course he's skeptical about this particular story, since he states that about every headline posted on JW. Nothing new here.
Tell us thesaracen - name but one headline ever posted on JW that you believe was true - just one.
Posted by: champ at February 1, 2008 4:21 PM
"Several years more of suicidal denial of the multi-cultural illusion?"
Several years more? That's more time than I thought we had.
Did you read the link Borg pointed to? Germans who speak out against the "multi-cultural illusion" are denigrated as xenophobes. One lawmaker stands to lose his bid for reelection because of this.
Tom Tancredo was likewise either vilified or ignored by the American MSM.
at February 1, 2008 4:36 PM
seville844,
Interesting. Tancredo was marginalized by the media in the U.S. He sounds so reasonable if you let him speak for a minute or two, so they didn't. I'd hoped to vote for him but he dropped out before I could. I've always been a believer in the protest vote, but only if they're actually still running.
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2008 4:38 PM
Simple case of the spiritually disabled taking advantage of the mentally disabled.
Posted by: rational at February 1, 2008 4:46 PM
This story here is a real concern, don't you think?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1A0A844D-0F59-40E5-8284-3DD1748F9048
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at February 1, 2008 5:16 PM
"the problem of the great Virgin Shortage in Paradise"
As I've posted before, I believe there are only 72 virgins total in Paradise. The martyrs have to wait their turn. At present, it's about 11000 years before you get your first one. While waiting, you can watch "I Love Lucy" re-runs or play Freecell.
at February 1, 2008 5:24 PM
How does one further tarnish the image of islam?
As if most of them are concerned with their image anyway. Reminds me of the old limbo dance refrain..." How low can you go..?"
at February 1, 2008 5:50 PM
HOW can they use the term "suicide bomber" for people who are blown up remotely???? Mentally disabled or not... that is not *suicide" - that is murder & human sacrifice. I have often wondered how many of the so-called "suicide" bombers really were fully in personal control of the decision to do that. I think many, at least, are not, either through outright force or extreme coercion, and maybe chemical influence as well. Disgusting, and I do NOT want to live under such folks!!! Can we PLEASE keep them away?!?
Posted by: thatisall at February 1, 2008 6:05 PM
I was not fooled one moment by the Saracens earlier posts. He came off as such a reasonable person interested in rational discourse... in revealing the "truth" about Islam. Now, when this horrific act is carried out by his brothers, he is immediately reduced to cussing and demeaning those that report the story. No reason...no logic, just emotion and vitriol. How very typical of the radical Islamist. (And a lot of lefties as well.)
He is a radical. He comes here in the guise of a rational human being seeking discourse and enlightenment.
In truth he is no better than the animals that perpetrated this heinous act. His defense of this atrocity makes that clear.
His real purpose here is to further the Global Jihad. He attempts to cover his fellow Jihadis behinds by claiming that anything that puts Islam in a bad light is just part of a conspiracy, or the work of anti-Islamists. (Isn't that what the Brits call Jihadis now?)
He and Naseem are at war with the free world...at war with us.
They are both part of the propaganda machine that defends the religion of death. When will they realize that we will fight this creeping cancer with every weapon at our disposal until it is dead dead dead? The only hope for Islam is change. Muslims the world over must rid themselves of these animals and stop practicing the murderous parts of their Koran. I fear this will not happen. None of those in power now will give up their right to dispense death and pain in the name of Allah. Islam is the perfect vehicle for those who seek power. It is not a religion...it is a form of government disguised as a religion...and it will fail...as all fascist dictatorships have. It's a shame that millions of Muslims must die in the process...simply for closing their minds and trusting their "religious" leaders. Remember Jim Jones? Stop...don't drink the Kool-aid. I implore Muslims to think for themselves and live, or drown in the blood of Islam. It's their choice.
at February 1, 2008 6:36 PM
oh goodness. Is there nothing these murderers won't do to honor their god allah?
God have mercy on us all.
Posted by: Crusader at February 1, 2008 6:43 PM
PMK: " Did you read the link Borg pointed to? Germans who speak out against the "multi-cultural illusion" are denigrated as xenophobes."
I did. Yeah, that's the general problem, peopel are labelled as xenophobes. But I think that at some point Islamofascism will be too obvious for peopel to ignore.
Posted by: seville844 at February 1, 2008 7:19 PM
Beagle - behind in science!!! Ok then mate if you say so.
Alaskan- wow!!! You would make a shit critic. You don't have a clue what you just read.
Global Jihad, another one of those terms that have come out of nowhere since 9/11. What the hell is global jihad? 'Global striving', that doesn't sound right does it?
I mean look at yourselves. I say a few words questioning a report and you're ready to kill me. But when muslims express their anger at having to accept some bastards drawing cartoons of our Prophet pbuh it's not the same thing. Naseem ain't a muslim, he's in you're camp disguised as a muslim.
It wouldn't matter if they were muslim, 'jihadis', peace-loving muslims, moderate muslims... anything that has an association with Islam you will hate. So stop lying to yourselves.
champ- there are a some I can't deny. There are those however which attack Islam, hundreds of them and they are bullshit I could refute them right now. All that shit about dominance, and forced conversions and woman, jihad, honour killings, bollocks, has nothing to do with Islam.
Posted by: thesaracen at February 1, 2008 7:32 PM
"No need for Naseem to post; we can generate a Naseem post ourselves:
Assalamau Laikum all,
yes, this is sad day when two womens, even retardeds, have to kill so many peoples, but it could be said they were push by Bush to do it. As you know I am Ahmadi and we do not believe the Deen is advanced this way. If you kuffr will stop focssing on the negative and look to the positive in Islam, the true Tawheed and Wudud and not the desperate measures of these sad womens, you will see the light as Wuslims
and Allah Tall'ah knows best"
Posted by: Naseem
---------------------------------------------
We have a real compassionate person here (sarcasm). First Naseem says "two womens, even the retardeds" in a way that shows contempt for both women and the mentally handicapped.
Naseem seems to blame this on Bush, and not the degenerates that took advantage of these women in the most horrible way possible. These women were turned into killers, and most likely did not have the mental capacity to be held responsible for their actions.
After you try to pathetically shift the blame, you tell us to overlook the negative. Now why on earth should we overlook such brutal atrocities just because you can't intellectually justify them to us? Do you think we are that gullible? Are you really that deluded? Or are you just that arrogant?
Posted by: sh217 at February 1, 2008 7:38 PM
Wow, I was so angry when I read this story, I missed the part where Naseem didn't actually right that.
Posted by: sh217 at February 1, 2008 7:42 PM
"write"
Posted by: sh217 at February 1, 2008 7:43 PM
"If you kuffr will stop focssing on the negative and look to the positive in Islam, the true Tawheed and Wudud and not the desperate measures of these sad womens, you will see the light as Wuslims"
OK, since I'm particularly fond of beheading apostates, I'll mention it as a positive.
at February 1, 2008 8:08 PM
Re: Saracen's comments, from what I've read of methods of suicide bombings, apparently if these poor women were wearing the very common "vest" type of bombs, these tend to leave the wearer's head intact. (I recall reading that the female suicide bomber who killed Rajiv Gandhi several years ago was identified by her intact face, though I may be getting that mixed up with the suicide-bombing assassination of a different public figure.)
So, if these poor women were forced or "encouraged" to don explosive vests, it is very possible that their heads remained intact after the blast--and people with Down syndrome are easily identifiable by their facial features.
Posted by: kaffirchick at February 1, 2008 8:23 PM
kaffirchick,
That's true. Amazing the things I've learned from Islamic science about removing body parts.
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2008 8:30 PM
But the article never said they had downs syndrome. It just said they were mentally disabled.
How is the person who reported the story supposed to know they were mentally disabled? More to the point how does he know the bombs were remotely detonated? Was he there?
The whole point of the matter is that these actions are not the actions of a muslim. How can you go to a market and take the lives of 64 people as well as you're own and say thats what god instructed you to do? Allah swt is the most just and knows what you and I don't know.
Posted by: thesaracen at February 1, 2008 8:43 PM
These are not humans. Can't be.
at February 1, 2008 8:49 PM
thesaracen -
Is that Allah Sweater And Tie?
Read the Qur'an and you will find all sorts of justification for the actions you describe.
If you're supposed to kill the infidels until the very stones and trees cry out that there is a Jew hiding behind them, then anything goes.
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 1, 2008 8:56 PM
"Allah swt is the most just and knows what you and I don't know."
And I thought Allah was the invisible sock puppet invented to fulfill the insatiable lusts and ambitions of the madman Mohammad.
Don't I feel stupid.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 1, 2008 9:02 PM
"I've always been a believer in the protest vote, but only if they're actually still running."
by beagle
I agree. I could type in Tancredo's name but he lost my vote when he dropped out. That leaves Ron Paul. Not that I agree with everything the man says, but I have never agreed with everything any candidate said.
People go nuts when he says he wants to bring home all of our soldiers and all I can ask is: why not? Let al qaeda think it won a victory. The people of that area will get nothing less than they deserve: Islamic tyranny. Why must the US bankrupt itself to prevent al qaeda from winning? There are lots of other countries with the means to fight it. Let them contribute. They're welcome anytime.
at February 1, 2008 9:03 PM
The whole point of the matter is that these actions are not the actions of a muslim. How can you go to a market and take the lives of 64 people as well as you're own and say thats what god instructed you to do? Allah swt is the most just and knows what you and I don't know.
thesaracen,
So what are they? The misguided? What are they being told in the mosque? Did you hear anything good today?
And BTW it's "your" own. "you're" is the contraction for "you are".
Posted by: PMK at February 1, 2008 9:06 PM
Obviously, Naseem, you are completely ignorant about mentally disabled people. As a mom of a special needs child I assure you these women had no way to understand what they were doing and were simply trusting these heinous Muslims who put these explosives on them. One would hope that Islam will be the last religion of human sacrifice. I am completely outaged and disgusted by this latest display of the religion of violence...Islam which has a so called god who demands continual human sacrifice of men, women and children.
Posted by: Abby at February 1, 2008 9:11 PM
(psst! Naseem didn't really write that. It was parody.)
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 1, 2008 9:17 PM
“Nothing to do with Islam.”
They were selling dogs.
The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husayni Sistani has been very clear on the najis status of dogs to the peoples of Iraq. His opinions are founded in the Hadith.
"The Prophet cursed the lady who practices tattooing and the one who gets herself tattooed, and one who eats (takes) Riba' (usury) and the one who gives it. And he prohibited taking the price of a dog, and the money earned by prostitution, and cursed the makers of pictures."
-Hadith Volume 7, Book 63, Number 259
Rules are rules.
at February 1, 2008 9:21 PM
Cantor did a good job writing that comment by 'Naseem', as it sounds just like something she would state.
Posted by: champ at February 1, 2008 9:27 PM
thesaracen,
Of the hundreds of market, mosque, hospital, and school bombings carried out by Muslims, none were carried out by Muslims?
It's a river called denial.
With so much deception in one religion, one might think a great deceiver was involved, were one so inclined to think that way.
Posted by: Beagle at February 1, 2008 9:28 PM
This bombing is a sad reflection on islam as it practicers will never to stoop low to bring death. And upon watching the nightly news on regular T.V. there, was no mention of the disabilities of these women. Just that the bombers were women. Islam what a cult of death it is, and it's here in America!
Posted by: AMartinez at February 1, 2008 9:36 PM
"Iraqi security: Female suicide bombers were mentally disabled; bombs detonated remotely"
If these women were mentally disabled, it's my guess they could no longer function as slaves of their Muslim husbands.
Find their husbands, and you'll find the remote controls.
at February 1, 2008 9:55 PM
The whole point of the matter is that these actions are not the actions of a muslim. How can you go to a market and take the lives of 64 people as well as you're own and say thats what god instructed you to do? Allah swt is the most just and knows what you and I don't know.
thesaracen,
That's not very convincing.
You complain about those here accepting flimsy evidence, and then you, without a shred of evidence to the contrary, make a flat out statement that muslims had no part in it. How do you know that? A direct pipeline to Allah, and he told you? Don't tell other muslims you talk to Allah, only Amahdinijad, the Beasty Boy of Iran, is allowed to do that.
Why did you capitalize Allah and not capitalize god?
Posted by: duh_swami at February 1, 2008 10:25 PM
Cantor wrote:
"No need for Naseem to post; we can generate a Naseem post ourselves:
Assalamau Laikum all,
yes, this is sad day when two womens, even retardeds, have to kill so many peoples, but it could be said they were push by Bush to do it. As you know I am Ahmadi and we do not believe the Deen is advanced this way. If you kuffr will stop focssing on the negative and look to the positive in Islam, the true Tawheed and Wudud and not the desperate measures of these sad womens, you will see the light as Wuslims
and Allah Tall'ah knows best"
Posted by: Naseem
Brilliant comic relief.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 1, 2008 10:31 PM
Even Hitler, at his very psychopathic lowest, wasn't this bestially low.
Islam: taking monstrous fascism to new depths.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 1, 2008 11:13 PM
Hey Kafir N, I'd vager even Naseem snickered alittle. But just for a sec cause humor is the kafirs way of leading the muslimas astray.
Posted by: AMartinez at February 1, 2008 11:21 PM
I guess you all haven't heard.This wasn't a bombing,this was....
The Islamic Special Olympics!!!
at February 1, 2008 11:50 PM
'How can you go to a market and take the lives of 64 people as well as you're own and say thats what god instructed you to do.'
Apparently, it's not so hard. It's done.
And, you are just an ignorant ass, with no concept of your own dogma. Go away. You bother me.
Posted by: breezy55 at February 1, 2008 11:59 PM
It was remotely detonated, because...
a Jew pushed the button!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Just like 9/11. The Jews did it, but, oh yeah, it was great anyway.
Posted by: Mr. Slugworth at February 2, 2008 12:07 AM
BTW Regulars,
As I mentioned recently when the guy fell down the stairs and blew him self up. We shouldn't joke about this stuff. We should educate, not laugh at death. We can show we are better than them.
Posted by: jt at February 2, 2008 12:16 AM
Cantor was almost perfect, except for the fact that Naseem tends to use Urdu, rather than Arabic terminology, and therefore may not have used terms such as 'Tawheed' and 'Wudud'. Other than that, it was brilliant, given how sh217 and Abby totally fell for it.
Too bad we can't reward him with his deserved share of wild slutty womens ;-)
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 2, 2008 12:17 AM
"Female suicide bombers were mentally disabled; bombs detonated remotely"
Wasn't our very own Naseem, per chance?
Posted by: ewha1 at February 2, 2008 1:10 AM
"...given how sh217 and Abby totally fell for it."
got Punk'd!
at February 2, 2008 1:24 AM
This terror attack may have the bigger picture in mind. To let our new, self promoted, RINO "leader" want to be, that THEY can squash him like a bug, whenever thay wish.
Unless he threatens, as our new "leader", more troops, the draft, or conscription, and a longer stay in Iraq of course.
Keep watching John Mac, our new "leader".
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 2, 2008 2:00 AM
A is A. The unimpeachable logic promulgated by Aristotle applies here. Despite whatever may be said in denial..facts are facts. The fact here is that no matter how horrific the act performed in the name of Allah.. there will be apologists. Why? These apologists count on the fact that most people will be unable to determine the underlying premise behind both the attacks and the excuses for them. Where can this lead? Read 'The Ominous Parallels' by Leonard Peikoff written around 1980. Where do I think it will lead? Where do I pray this will lead as a Christian? These abominable acts will lead ala Malcolm Gladwell to a much quicker 'Tipping Point.' where Satan is vanquished sooner rather than later. Incidentally, as a relevant aside for Christians who are paralyzed to inaction due to 'Turn the other Cheek', Jesus also said 'Render to God what is God's and Render unto Caesar what is Caesars'.That means governments and freedom loving people need to vanquish this evil philosophy now! Also it is a moral imperative to use one's mind in dealing with earthly matters with great clarity such as Ayn Rand articulated.After all, the stunning intellects (except maybe thesaracen) on jihadwatch.org give me great hope that modern-day 'Paul Reveres' will utilize the neural network of the Internet to awaken a sleeping populace from the slumber of the mind-numbing irrational actions and statements of the 'A is not A' jihadist and sharia law thugs. Robert Spencer, in particular, hearing you on Michael Savage and reading your posts daily for months now gives me deep inspiration and optimism about the future. Thank you so much for giving me and millions hope during these troubled times!
Posted by: ayn.randian.christian at February 2, 2008 2:02 AM
Don't forget, Naseem likes to use the term, 'wild slutty womans'. It's a mental thing really...
Posted by: duh_swami at February 2, 2008 2:04 AM
ayn.randian.christian
I could give you a thousand reasons why A is not A, but I can't think of any right now. But just because I can't think of any does not mean they do not exist...somewhere. I have been collecting these for years, I am up to Q is not Q, but somehow I misplaced my collection.
Seriously though I am sure Robert will appriciate this comment:
Posted by: duh_swami at February 2, 2008 2:20 AM
Gadzooks I hit the send button before I was done composing. It's advancing old age and years of tofu...Here's the comment I think RS will appreciate: "Robert Spencer, in particular, hearing you on Michael Savage and reading your posts daily for months now gives me deep inspiration and optimism about the future. Thank you so much for giving me and millions hope during these troubled times".
at February 2, 2008 2:24 AM
Sick, the two women had Down's syndrome.
Posted by: Silly Allah at February 2, 2008 3:09 AM
Sorry OT, but jihad related:
For all you Arabic speaking Jihad Watchers: this was posted on my website earlier, just wondering if anybody could translate it for me:
آیتالله سید علی حسینی خامنه | 23deltaatiullah@hotmail.com | IP: 24.10.190.105
عشية أيام عشرة الفجر وذكرى عودة الإمام الخميني التاريخية للوطن الإسلامي، زار سماحة آية الله العظمى الإمام الخامنئي صباح يوم الخميس 31 /1 /2008 م المرقد الطاهر للإمام الخميني الراحل (رض) في جنوب طهران، وحيى المقام الشامخ لمؤسس الجمهورية الإسلامية، وأحيى ذكراه الخالدة بقراءة الفاتحة على روحه الطاهرة.
ثم زار سماحته أضرحة شهداء السابع من تير (28 حزيران) وسائر الشهداء سائلا لهم من الله علو الدرجا
Feb 2, 8:13 AM — [ Edit | Delete | Unapprove | Approve | Spam | View Post
at February 2, 2008 3:34 AM
Sheikh
I don't know Arabic, but using Google's translater, this is what I get, whatever it means
=========================================
Aitallh Seyed Ali Hosseini Khamnh | 23deltaatiullah@hotmail.com | IP: 24.10.190.105
Ten days eve of the anniversary of the return of Dawn and Imam Khomeini's historic homeland of the Muslim, visited Ayatollah Khamenei forward on the morning of Thursday 31 / 1 / 2008 m below Taher of the late Khomeini (MNA) in the south of Tehran, and above all shy Shamikh founder of the Islamic Republic, and salute his memory eternal Read the spirit of pure light.
His Eminence then visited shrines Martyrs VII of the Terre (28 June) and other martyrs of them and asked God altitude stairs
at February 2, 2008 3:48 AM
thesaracen
Thank you for proving my point. I LMAO when I read your post. Keep up the good work.
at February 2, 2008 4:27 AM
Thanks mate,
Not much I can do with it, seems to be unrelated to the thread...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 2, 2008 4:29 AM
jt
Yer comment regarding uh..not making fun of the doofs that fall down stairs on the way to a bombing... I was kinda like you at one time, when I was first getting acquainted with Islam. Let's be civil and "better than them." When these slimebags go around blowing up innocents, it aint hard to be better than them. Anything we can do to properly ridicule them and bring to light the fact that they are foolish and clumsy is a good thing. Humor is a good thing when properly applied. Others have stated this far better than I. Perhaps it will be stated again, or maybe someone out there may have a better memory than I.
at February 2, 2008 4:43 AM
Islamic Special Olympics?
I really have no sympathy for these weak, compliant people and reserve the right to ridicule them for not rising up and destroying the animals that dwell in their villages, towns, & cities. They know who they are, yet they do nothing.
Pull out our troops. Now!
Posted by: Bingo at February 2, 2008 6:22 AM
The Nazis killed the mentally disabled, a tradition the Islamofascists continue.
However, even Hitler liked animals and was a vegetarian.
Combining abuse of the disabled, murder and animal cruelty in one operation! There's a perverse beauty in it.
at February 2, 2008 6:36 AM
Thesaracen said,
"There are those however which attack Islam, hundreds of them and they are bullshit I could refute them right now. All that shit about dominance, and forced conversions and woman, jihad, honour killings, bollocks, has nothing to do with Islam."
and
"The whole point of the matter is that these actions are not the actions of a muslim. How can you go to a market and take the lives of 64 people as well as you're own and say thats what god instructed you to do? Allah swt is the most just and knows what you and I don't know."
So who commits these atrocities, then?
Space aliens?
at February 2, 2008 7:44 AM
"designed to tarnish the image of Islam," --posted way above
Excuse me, Islam has been tarnished since the 7th century. It's always done a super job tarnishing itself, and continues to do so.
Posted by: darcy at February 2, 2008 7:49 AM
So who commits these atrocities, then?
Space aliens?
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at February 2, 2008 7:44 AM
No, Mohammedans.
thesaracen's denial is both risible and ludicrous.
Posted by: darcy at February 2, 2008 8:28 AM
"Sad sad, how long is this madness going to continue?" posted by seville844
Yes, this pandering to Barbarians is not only madness, it's suicidal. I cannot believe the America I live in.
Posted by: darcy at February 2, 2008 8:33 AM
I see the use of tardos as weapons by Moslem activists to be sacramental. After all, Islam stupefies. Ever had an intelligent conversation with a Moslem? Think about it.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 2, 2008 8:34 AM
Jewdog"There's a perverse beauty in it."
Har di har, now there's something. I was going to post something about the imagination of our Islamic brethren. You know, let's say you really want to kill someone, so how do you do it? Really, that's a valid question. Shoot him in the head? Perhaps, but a tad overused. A bomb? WOW! Close, but still not exactly pushing back the so-called envelope.
"Hey, lets get some mental Muslim women, stuff some TNT in their knickers, and then, when they're off to recharge their vibrator batteries, or whatever, press the red button."
Come on, that's creative. Don't deny it.
INFIDEL CREATIVITY
Mozart
Bach
Beethoven
Debussy
Faure
Ravel
MUSLIM CREATIVITY
Some guy gets a div, stuffs her bra full of semtex then sends her into a marketplace. Presses button. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
at February 2, 2008 8:35 AM
I have said before that Humor is a sign of intelligence. Since Islam has no humor, it probably is the best thing to fight it with. Islam has no defence against it.
Name me a Muslim that has a sense of humor.
Posted by: credit man at February 2, 2008 9:39 AM
The truth about Islam:
Someone publishes a cartoon with a picture of the founder of Islam.
Muslims fill the streets, make death threats, worldwide outrage on the Muslim street, riot, destroy property.
Muslims strap bombs on 2 Muslim women with Downs Syndrome who had no idea what was going on, who should have been protected and cared for, send them into a market and detonate the bombs blowing them up and injuring and killing others.
Muslims are silent.
Any questions?
Posted by: Abby at February 2, 2008 10:43 AM
In their coverage of this story, the Los Angeles Times labored to dispute the claim that the explosives were carried into the jammed market by two women with Down syndrome and were detonated remotely. "No proof," the article concludes.
The Times also tried to foist off on its readers the year's most inane excuse for terrorism: "People can only take [a lack of security] so much, and sooner or later they will decide they have had enough and revert back to violence," you quote a Baghdad accountant. So, the good citizens of Baghdad are blowing up people in marketplaces as a protest against a lack of security!
No wonder people have stopped reading the Mind Screen Media.
Posted by: Chris at February 2, 2008 11:24 AM
This is an interesting development. Previous studies of suicide bombers have all indicated that they are usually better off socially and economically than those around them so this may mark a new trend in the phenomenon. It will be interesting to see if the jihadist community accepts this new development and uses this as a new tactic or if it creates revulsion within the community. Anyone out there read any Arabic message boards or anything and know what the hardcore Islamic reaction is? Has some cleric given the go ahead for the use of mentally disabled suicide bombers, and if so who? This story really raises a few questions and it will take some time to see how it plays out.
Posted by: BangkokBill at February 2, 2008 11:25 AM
Christians strap remote-control bombs onto mentally retarded women and then detonate them all the time. So do Buddhists and Jews. It is even more common among Hindus and Zoroastrians.
Everyone blows up retarded women by remote control. We are all the same. All religions teach the same values. All people want the same things.
Posted by: special_guest at February 2, 2008 11:50 AM
BangkokBill said
It will be interesting to see if the jihadist community accepts this new development and uses this as a new tactic or if it creates revulsion within the community.
I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet my house and car that we won't see protests of revulsion at this "new tactic".
As Hugh pointed out, it's not new. They've used mentally retarded people and women and children to carry their bombs, and then blown them up. They've hidden explosives in baby carriages, wooden legs on amputees, in UN vehicles, and in ambulances. Different sects of Muslims target each others' holy holy mosques and religious festivals with bombs. They behead screaming victims like they were sawing a 2x4.
We won't hear a single peep of a protest over this in the Muslim community. Not one word. Bet on it.
Posted by: special_guest at February 2, 2008 12:00 PM
All that shit about dominance, and forced conversions and woman, jihad, honour killings, bollocks, has nothing to do with Islam.
Posted by: thesaracen "
ok..
Dominance:
"The goal of existence, according to the Qur’an, is a struggle for Islamic domination by any means – including deceit and terror, which were both practiced by Muhammad. The world must submit to Allah. There is no other point to life, and this explains the near absence of cultural and technological innovation on the part of Muslims in history, who merely borrowed from the hapless souls they conquered. Knowledge outside of religious teachings is not encouraged, except as it contributes to Islamic goals."
...force conversions:
"Islamic law forbids forced conversion, but in Islamic history this law has all too often been honored in the breach. More significantly, Islamic law regarding the presentation of Islam to non-Muslims manifests a quite different understanding of what constitutes freedom from coercion and freedom of conscience from that which prevails among non-Muslims. Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them – the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
There is therefore an inescapable threat in this “invitation” to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? By non-Muslim standards, yes, but not according to the view of this Islamic tradition. From the standpoint of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence such a conversion would have resulted from “no compulsion.”
Muhammad reinforced these instructions on many occasions during his prophetic career. Late in his career, he wrote to Heraclius, the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople:
Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e., surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e., your nation). (Bukhari, 4.52.191).
Heraclius did not accept Islam, and soon the Byzantines would know well that the warriors of jihad indeed granted no safety to those who rejected their “invitation.”
Muhammad did not limit his veiled threat only to rulers. Another hadith records that on one occasion he emerged from a mosque and told his men, “Let us go to the Jews.” Upon arriving at a nearby Arabian Jewish community, Muhammad told them: “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle” (Bukhari, 4.53.392). In other words, if you accept Islam, you may keep your land and property, but if not, Muhammad and the Muslims would confiscate it.
Would someone who converted in the face of such a threat be considered to have been forced by Islamic jurists? No – and therein lies the reason why the conversions of Centanni and Wiig could be presented by their captors as uncoerced, in the teeth of the evidence.
This, too, has a foundation in the Qur’an. Sura 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [a special tax levied only on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” This verse does not force conversion, but it did in Islamic history become the foundation of an elaborate legal system, the dhimma (to which Akyol refers). This system ensured that non-Muslims would “feel themselves subdued” by mandating a series of humiliating and discriminatory regulations that institutionalized second-class status for non-Muslims in Islamic societies. As the schools of Islamic jurisprudence developed, they constructed upon various ahadith and passages of the Qur’an a legal structure for the treatment of non-Muslims.
The features of this remained remarkably consistent across the centuries, and among all the legal schools. Consider the contemporary Saudi Sheikh Marzouq Salem Al-Ghamdi, who several years ago explained in a sermon the terms in which an Islamic society should tolerate the presence of non-Muslims in its midst:
If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are . . . that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes . . . that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim….If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.[i]
In this the Sheikh is merely repeating the classic terms of Islamic jurisprudence for the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic societies – and he explicitly links these terms to Muhammad’s example. The second-class status for Christians and Jews, mandated by Qur’an 9:29’s stipulation that they “feel themselves subdued,” was first fully articulated by Muhammad’s lieutenant Umar during his caliphate (634 to 644), in terms strikingly similar to those used by Sheikh Marzouq. The Christians making this pact with Umar pledged:
We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims….We will not . . . prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons…. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims. . . .
After these and other rules are fully laid out, the agreement concludes: “These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”[ii]
All this does not add up to forced conversion, but many times in Islamic history it has made living as a non-Muslim so burdensome and onerous that conversion to Islam became the only path to a better life. Coerced? Perhaps not. But the line between coercion and free choice is in this case exceedingly fine."
"Persecution, Kidnapping and Forced Conversions of Christians in Egypt
by Robert Spencer
Posted: 12/09/2004 Print This
Forward
Feedback
Digg This!
Subscribe
Archives
Sponsored By:
1_bodyimage_5989.jpgThe latest outrage in Egypt has been, like all the others, almost universally ignored by the international media and human rights groups. Wafaa Constantine Messiha, wife of a Coptic priest in Egypt, was abducted by jihadist Muslims and forced to convert to Islam. The Mubarak regime has done nothing. This is no isolated incident: Wilfred Wong of the Jubilee Campaign, a Christian human rights group, notes that "the attempts to force Christians to convert to Islam in Egypt are on the increase and the methods are getting increasingly varied and well organized. Some of these forced conversions are carried out by Muslim individuals, with the help of their friends, while others are being conducted by well funded groups." The situation has gotten so bad for Copts in Egypt that Pope Shenouda III, the leader of the Coptic Church, recently spoke out boldly about one common method of abduction and forced conversion: "I have received so many letters about what's happening to the Christian girls who go to supermarket stores to shop. At the store they tell them that they have won and have to go upstairs to receive their award or prize. After that we don't know what's happening to these girls upstairs. There is a lot of talking going on about this matter, and I see that what's happening will create a religious clash in the country. I'm urging the police to take a serious action against what's happening." But the police did nothing, and the Copts are getting increasingly fed up. According to Emil Zaki of the U.S. Copts Association, "The situation in Egypt is exploding every minute for the last three days. Muslims are regularly attacking Copts, and they kidnapped the wife of a priest to force her to convert to Islam." Three thousand demonstrators gathered last Sunday and Monday in four Egyptian provinces to protest the Mubarak regime's inaction in the Wafaa Constantine Messiha case and its general indifference to the persecution of the Copts. Says Michael Meunier, president of the U.S. Copts Association: "Mubarak's regime has not only ignored, but in many cases contributed to the alarming increase in anti-Coptic violence." Actions against Christians not only in Egypt, but all over the Middle East, are usually ascribed these days to anti-U.S. sentiment in the wake of the invasion of Iraq -- when they're reported at all. But such incidents are far older than the U.S. presence in Iraq; they have been going on for decades, even centuries. According to the Jubilee Campaign, in the late 1990s Coptic Christians uncovered evidence of houses in which "different teams of Muslims were working to pressure or force Christians to convert to Islam." They found "a very organized and systematic approach by these Muslims to waylaying and forcing Egyptian Christians to convert to Islam." This is just one manifestation of the discrimination and harassment that Christians and other non-Muslims still face all over the Islamic world. Even though the laws of many Muslim-majority nations guarantee equality of rights and freedom of conscience, in practice Christians face discrimination and harassment -- and even, on occasion, penalties derived from Sharia, Islamic law. Sometimes the secular law gives way to Sharia even if Sharia is not on the books. One notorious example was the case of Robert Hussein Qambar Ali, a Kuwaiti who converted from Islam to Christianity in the 1990s. He was arrested and tried for apostasy, even though the Kuwaiti Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and says nothing about the traditional Islamic prohibition on conversion to another faith. One of Hussein's prosecutors explained: "With grief I have to say that our criminal law does not include a penalty for apostasy. The fact is that the legislature, in our humble opinion, cannot enforce a penalty for apostasy any more or less than what our Allah and his messenger have decreed. The ones who will make the decision about his apostasy are: our Book, the Sunna, the agreement of the prophets and their legislation given by Allah." As Islamic radicalism increases, Muslims grow increasingly less tolerant toward their non-Muslim neighbors. But the world continues to take no notice, either of poor Wafaa Constantine Messiha or of the larger situation. The "white man's burden" of colonial days has now been reversed, such that in the conceptual framework of the UN and the international media, only Westerners can do evil, and Christians cannot possibly play the role of victim. The sooner the world casts off these blinkered Chomskyite/Saidist fantasies, the better off we'll all be."
...Jihad:
What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.
The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)
The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)
The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)
The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)
The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)
The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)
The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)
The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)
The Jihad against Chinese (751)
The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)
The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)
The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)
The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)
The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)
The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)
The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)
The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)
The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)
The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)
The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)
The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)
The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)
The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)
The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)
The Jihad against Austrians (1683)
Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)
The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)
The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)
The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)
The Jihad against Denmark (2005 Cartoon Controversy onwards)
The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)
The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)
The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)
The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)
The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)
The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)
at February 2, 2008 12:01 PM
Thanks for the gumph, "exsgtbrown"
Posted by: ewha1 at February 2, 2008 12:12 PM
Thanks for the gumph, "exsgtbrown"
Posted by: ewha1
What's 'gumph'? If it's edible or smokable, I will take fifty cents worth, If I like it I will buy more...
Posted by: duh_swami at February 2, 2008 12:41 PM
What everybody missed here is the fact that islamsts consider pet raising a voilation of Islam, therefor they target the pet markets in Baghdad repeatedly.
To the Islamists , what is really important is death as there is no meaning for their mesirable lives.
What the west should do to encounter this barbarism is to stop selling weapons to the Muslim world.
The immenant threat today is Pakistan , it is an atomic country with unlimited terrorist potentials.
Samir
at February 2, 2008 1:27 PM
"What everybody missed here is the fact that islamsts consider pet raising a voilation of Islam, therefor they target the pet markets in Baghdad repeatedly.
Posted by: Farid"
...everything is a violation of Islam...that explains why they attact pet shops, barber shops, music cd shops, vegetable stands, clothing shops, book stores, used appliance shops, icecream vendors, meat stores, shoe shops, perfume and soap stores, .......heck you name it...Islam attacks it...
Ban Muslim Immigration...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 2, 2008 1:36 PM
"Oh the horror, the horror..."
... that is Islam, a cult of human sacrifice to their Death god Allah.
at February 2, 2008 1:40 PM
...Ackmed sez, : "Hey, Amed, that attack went really well!"
...Amed replies: "Yeah! no one suspected those mentally handicapped people to be bombs"
......"What can we do to top that?"
......"Next week, we are going to take some people out of the nursing home, load them up and send them in with their wheelchairs and crutches"
....."That will be a blast!"
....."Yes, it surely be a blessing from Allah!"...
at February 2, 2008 1:56 PM
Two women with downs syndrome, bombs detonated remotely. Why didn't the people with the remote detonators do the job themselves instead of using using the helpless? Says it all really.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2251136,00.html
Posted by: DaveMate at February 2, 2008 4:19 PM
Two women with downs syndrome, bombs detonated remotely. Why didn't the people with the remote detonators do the job themselves instead of using using the helpless? Says it all really.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2251136,00.html
Posted by: DaveMate at February 2, 2008 4:20 PM
Sorry for the double post.
Posted by: DaveMate at February 2, 2008 4:21 PM
Allah swt is the most just and knows what you and I don't know.Posted by: thesaracen
Speak for yourself as far as what I know and don't know. I know this, you don't know who allah is. I know who allah is not! Allah is not the true and living God. I know the true God (personally) and allah is not his name. He has many NAMES and allah is not one of them.
Another thing, your use of the word 'most just' as a virtue of allah. Everything that I have read and understood about allah is the opposite. Allah; is proud, narcissistic, indecisive, unjust, a mouth piece for Mohammad, a father of lies, a hater, a murder, did not create anything and wants to be like God. Below is a description of allah.
Isiah 14:11-14
Your might and power are gone; they were buried with you. All the pleasant music in your palace has ceased. Now maggots are your sheet and worms your blanket. How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world. For you said to yourself, 'I will ascend to heaven and set my throne above God's stars. I will preside on the mountain of the gods far away in the north. I will climb to the highest heavens and be like the Most High.'
Isiah 14:11-14
حسابك قد ولت والسلطة ؛ دفنوا معكم. جميع طيفا الموسيقى الخاصة بك في قصر توقف. يرقات الخاص بك الآن هي ورقة والديدان الخاص بك بطانيه. كيف سقطت من السماء يا نجمه الساطع ، ابن الصباح! كنت قد القيت نزولا الى الأرض ، وأنت الذي دمر امم العالم. لأنك قلت لنفسك : 'انني سوف يصعد الى السماء ومجموعة بلدي فوق عرش الله نجوم. ساكون رئيسا على جبل الآلهة بعيدا في الشمال. انا سترتفع الى اعلى السماوات ويكون مثل معظم عاليه. '
at February 2, 2008 4:29 PM
"When these slimebags go around blowing up innocents, it aint hard to be better than them."
No matter what the status of the shoppers and merchants killed in the blasts, at least two innocents were indeed killed.
It's very difficult to find anyone more innocent, in every sense of that word, than a person affected by Down's Syndrome.
As the older sister of a brother with Down's, I hope and pray there's a special place in hell for the animals who held the remote detonators.
Posted by: Abscedere at February 2, 2008 4:31 PM
thesaracen
Just so ya know...I don't hate Muslims. I hate the men and women that kill people in the name of Allah that call themselves Muslims. I don't want to kill anyone that is not directly trying to kill me. Hell...I have no desire to kill anyone if I can avoid it!
What is the global Jihad? Have you noticed the attacks by radical Muslims in Indonesia,India,Turkey,the UK,Spain,Portugal, the Philippines and pretty much the rest of the world? Do you hear their messages when they perpetrate these attacks? Of course you do.
Insisting that the earth is flat does not make it so. Insisting that there is no desire amongst these radicals to establish the new Caliphate does not make it so.
Denying that Muslim women are treated like cattle by Muslim men is so ridiculous. There are no honor killings? HA! You might as well tell me that the sky is green and the grass blue. I will trust the evidence of my eyes. Apparently yours are closed.
But I guess you see it as your job to defend Islam against all "enemies." And the greatest "enemy" of Islam is TRUTH. So go ahead. Deny all you want. Cuss all you want. Call me what you will. I'll wear your name calling as a badge of honor.
The truth about radical Islam is everywhere for anyone to see that cares to. Your obscenity laced tirades only prove your lack of intellect and inability to reason, caused, I believe, by the brainwashing you received at the hands of your religious leaders. How else can you defend the indefensible?
"why are they going to bomb a market of all places?" To spread terror...the job of terrorists is to destabilize.
"I say a few words questioning a report and you're ready to kill me." Uh... I threatened to kill you? That's some imagination you've got there kid. And you must be a kid to have such a vivid imagination and so little ability to think for yourself.
"Naseem ain't a muslim, he's in you're camp disguised as a muslim." (Can't believe you didn't capitalize "muslim", even I do that! Have some respect for your religion will ya?) I wonder what Naseem will have to say about that. And how do you know this? Is it some more of that Muslim superiority at work? Or maybe she's not as good a Muslim as you are and you can just sense it somehow.
You've been told this before, by Naseem in fact. Naseem is a female. Get it? WOMAN. Not a man.
"anything that has an association with Islam you will hate. So stop lying to yourselves." Again...I don't hate Muslims or Islam...I hate the sacks of crap that kill in Islams name. Get it?
The only liar here is you pal. (Or are you truly that blind?) Your hatred is clear for all to see here.
Others have addressed the rest of your lies so I'll skip them. Have fun fighting the truth, but be advised...YOU WILL FAIL.
at February 2, 2008 7:37 PM
To establish a caliphate is the desire of all Muslims. To have all Muslim nations under one banner is not a crime to me my freind. What you have been led to believe is that it will come at the expense of your nations, your way of life, your religion, which is not true. As long you don't agress Muslim people there is not a verse in the Quran which says attack them because they disbelieve. Or force them to convert or take away their homes. Even after agressing muslim people if you wish for peace then according to the Quran you shall have it without the least injustice done to you.
Deny what? Where you there when this bombing took place? I wasn't, neither was the guy they interviewed. But somehow he knew they had a mental disability (nothing about downs syndrome) and the bomb was remotely detonated. All I'm asking is how does he know these things?
Well you live in a fantasy world if you believe all muslim men treat Muslim woman like cattle. I never said it did not happen in muslim families, I said it had nothing to do with Islam. There are plenty of cases where a father has killed his daughter in the world but they are called murders. When its a Muslim its an honour killing.
When black people in New Orleans broke into stores during Hurricane Katrina to get food to survive, it was called looting. When a white family did exactly the same thing it was called surviving. Your media is full of shit mate.
Radical Islam. I don't recognise that term.
Naseem is not a Muslim simply because he talks about Islam in a way a Muslim wouldn't do.
'obscenity laced tirades only prove your lack of intellect and inability to reason'
I don't recall being obscene and my intellect and ability to reason are the things that you dislike.
Its you thats fighting the truth I'm only fighting lies about Islam. I hate lies that's my only hatred.
Very few people have addressed anything I have said when it comes to the Quran and the hadith, most seem to abandon their questions and come up with something else. As for me I won't dodge anything. Ain't that right exsgtbrown?
at February 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Bukhari:V4B52N196 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say,"None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."'"
Qur'an:47:4 "So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."
at February 2, 2008 9:43 PM
Bukhari:V4B51N73 "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.'"
Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 2, 2008 9:45 PM
'saracen'
Here is part of a report about what is happening in Egypt, NOW, to people of Muslim background who have decided to leave Islam and become Christians. They are being treated with the wickedest injustice and cruelty.
FROM A REPORT IN WORLDNETDAILY, 1 February 2008:
"The curricula of public schools [in Egypt] established by the Ministry of Education, ignore the Coptic era in Egypt's history. Courses glorifying Islam (the 'Only True Religion') and its history, while vilifying the crusaders (i.e. Christians) and the Jews, are imposed on all students," the group said.
"In the case of a father of a Christian family converting to Islam, his minor children are forced to follow suit: The mother's custody rights – a well established legal principle – are ignored in this case, as children, according to typical court rulings, are supposed to follow the 'better (or 'more noble') of the two religions,'" the group said.
On the pro-freedom website called 'Sons of Apes and Pigs', a commentary noted that the Egyptian court decision "went on and issued a very explicit warning to Muhammad Hegazy, his wife and their lawyer, that going against the tide would provoke civil unrest [code: violent attacks upon Christians] and exacerbate emotions in the Egyptian society."
NOTE: Mohammed Hegazy and his wife converted to Christianity, and wish to have 'Christian' on their ID card rather than 'Muslim'.
"Freedom of religion doesn't mean getting in and out of Islam to another religion, but only means that each person is free to practice his own religious rites, and not playing games with Islam or contradicting Shari'a law," the website said the judge concluded.
The website, which said it took its name from Quranic descriptions of Christians and Jews, said Westerners don't realize the significance of having a national ID card listing the carrier as Muslim.
"If you get caught going to a church while your religion on your ID is Muslim, that could get you arrested, questioned and tortured," the commentary said.
[Note well: ARRESTED, QUESTIONED, AND TORTURED - FOR THE 'CRIME' OF GOING TO A CHURCH IF YOUR ID CARD SAYS YOU ARE 'MUSLIM'].
"The latest victim was a 27-year-old woman, Mrs. Sherreen, mother of two children from Alexandria, Egypt. She died at the police station on Jan. 3, 2008, after five hours of torture for refusing to renounce her Christian faith and come back to Islam."
('saracen' - CARE TO EXPLAIN TO US ALL ABOUT THE LOVE, MERCY, COMPASSION AND TOLERANCE OF ISLAM, AND ITS RESPECT FOR WOMEN? Remember: the police did this, to this woman, in a society in which the civil law is explicitly dependent upon your oh-so-wonderful sharia - WHICH I SPIT UPON, AS AN INVENTION OF THE DEVIL).
"The website noted in Egypt, children of parents with Muslim IDs automatically are Muslims, and they are required to follow mandatory Islamic indoctrination classes, and Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims.
"It also said to apply for any job, an applicant must provide the state-designated religious affiliation.
"The website also noted according to multiple media reports, Hegazy's father issued a statement that, "when I'll meet my son, I will discuss with him the reasons and circumstances that 'forced' him to leave Islam, and will offer him the opportunity to come back to Islam, but in case he refuses, I will kill him immediately."
"Press reports say Hegazy's case was the first time someone had sought to make a change from Islam in the religious designation on an official national ID card.
"Hegazy has reported he was studying various religions, and found he was not consistent with Islam.
"The major issue for me was love. Islam wasn't promoting love as Christianity did," he said.
As a result of his conversion he's reported being arrested and tortured several times ('SARACEN' - CARE TO EXPLAIN THIS AWAY, EH?) but it's opened wide the eyes of observers, the Apes and Pigs website said.
"'Muhammad Hegazy's case dynamited the Islamic mountain of lies, propaganda and false pride," the commentary said. "Not only in Egypt, but all over the Arab world. Exposed to the world [was] the deception of the Islamic governments, Egypt in particular … [of] 'no compulsion in religion.'"
According to the Compass Direct report, Gamal Eid, head of the Arab Network for Human Rights Information, whose lawyers have been representing the convert, said that he was disappointed with the verdict.
"The judge didn't listen to our defense, and we didn't even have a chance to talk before the court,” Eid said.
Meanwhile, death threats have forced the couple, whose new daughter is only a month old, into hiding.
"Compass also reported that at least partly because of the case, lawyers in Egypt now are trying to force the government to outlaw conversion from Islam in secular law as well as religious law."...
'saracen' - the laws of Egypt take their cue from sharia law. The sharia-guided laws and the Muslim rulers, judges and police of Egypt are permitting and carrying out horrendous cruelty and injustice both against the indigenous Coptic Christians, whose history and faith pre-dates the arrival of Islam in Egypt, and also against those brave and independent-minded Arabised Egyptians who - like Mr Mohammed Hegazy and his wife, and like the blessed saint and martyr, Mrs Sherreen (may her memory live forever) - leave Islam for a more loving and humane and human-friendly religion.
NOTHING you can say here can remove from our minds the knowledge of what was done to Mrs Sherreen in that Egyptian police station, by Egyptian Muslim policemen; or what Mr Mohammed Hegazy's father is planning to do to his 'apostate' son, i.e. MURDER, all officially provided for and commended by sharia law.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 2, 2008 9:53 PM
Bukhari:V9B84N59 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah." Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me.'"
Qur'an 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low." [Another translation says:] "pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection."
Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 2, 2008 9:54 PM
"When black people in New Orleans broke into stores during Hurricane Katrina to get food to survive, it was called looting. When a white family did exactly the same thing it was called surviving. Your media is full of shit mate.
Posted by: thesaracen
...."The entire Islamic world overflowed with joy when Hurricane Katrina struck in America and could have care less about helping out, compare that sentiment with the aid and charity America offered when earthqakes hit Pakistan, or tsunamis in Indonesia or earthquakes in Greece, Turkey or elsewhere....I did not see much in the way of the Islamic world helping out....it is true residents in Louisiana did loot the area, but they were not following any religious mandates nor the instructions of any religious cleric who is inciting them to loot, they did not kidnap, torture or run around in gangs trying to convert anyone,nor did they set explosives to blow up ambulances or doctors, nor did they ambush the police or the army....as far as the looting goes, it was mostly for food, which was slowly running out, and there very few people prosecuted, it is true white people did do some looting ...and it may interest you to know they were treated in the same way as the black people....if it appeared there were more blacks running around, then it might interest you to know the population of New Orleans is about 70% black....what did you expect to see?....truckloads of white folks shipped in?....when the MSM camera rolled and you saw more blacks running into the stores grabbing food..is is simply accurate reporting because that is who lived in New Orleans...Black People...70% or more...the media may have said "blacks are looting, whites are surviving", but I do not recall it being reported that way..perhaps you can provide some examples....the MSM is known to do some terrible reporting, and if you were to believe the MSM, they you know they said "Bush caused the hurricane"....is that true?...
.....The blacks in the Katrina hurricane storm disaster did not spread out in as many countries to dish out murder, create riots, infiltrate neighborhoods, begin assaulting, pillaging and murdering the inhabitants of those farflung neighborhoods , forcing those people to convert to their way of life...but Muslims do....
...big difference..
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 3, 2008 1:52 PM
Muslims whether you believe or not are the most charitable people on the face of this earth. Muslims are ordered to pay charity (Zakah) to help the poor and needy. All you have to do is go to a mosque. It does not matter if an earthquake or a catastrophy took place large amounts of money is collected for good causes. When these natural disasters do happen, you can bet Muslims are either giving money and other comforts or help in person. If they can't then prayers are given. Either way, Muslims are giving, charitable people.
In Islamic Law the rights of a non-Muslim in a Muslim land is something that even I can't fathom. How you have come to believe that non-Muslims are treated badly in Islamic Law is beyond me. Firstly you have made an uproar about the Jizya mentioned in(9:29).
In every country on this earth tax is due from the citizens of that country. Why in Islam is it wrong that the Quran should ask non-Muslims living in Muslim lands to pay Jizya. Thats the Islamic Law.
Pay the tax, with it you have protection from any wrongdoing and gives you freedom. But it was not a tax that forced the non-believers into poverty.
Sir Thomas Arnold wrote, ‘The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.’
Not only that in Islamic law, non-believers are exempt from Zakah.
The verse (9:29) doesn't say attack unbelievers without reason, as you have been led to believe, it actually says 'fight back' against unbelievers. So in plain English that means defend yourselves should they attack you. You can't fight back against something that hasn't fought you.
[9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
Any Surah which states fight the non-believers has some form of historical background and a purpose, which you conveniently fail to mention.
1- The Surah is referring to any Muslim that has been attacked. Fight them back, defend yourselves.
2- It is never referring to non-believing citizens who have done nothing to Muslims.
3- Some Surahs are referring to Muslims at a time when they were in battle and do not apply except in cases where Muslims are in battle and have been aggressed such as (9:29)
I don't live in a Muslim country. Can I fight a non-believer because he attacked me and force him to pay the Jizya? Who will the Jizya be paid to?
So(9:29) MUST BE referring to an army of non-believers, possibly the Quraysh, who attacked Muslims frequently. Not ordinary citizens as you all believe. If I was in battle with them, I would love to subdue them and let them know we were superior, doesn't mean kill them though does it?
You have misinterpreted many Surahs and hadiths to mean attack people just because they are non-believers. Well thats not correct because Allah swt says:
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
Forced conversions
Allah swt has prohibited forcing someone to believe unwillingly. A Muslim cannot under any circumstances force a non-believer to believe.
If it had been your Lord’s will, they would all have believed – all of who are on earth! Will you then compel humankind, against their will, to believe?” (Quran 10:99)
If God gave humans free will, then how can a Muslim take it away?
As much as you'll disagree, VERY FEW Muslims believe they have to force non-believers to convert, well they have obviously misunderstood. Have they not?
at February 3, 2008 6:52 PM
By Ali Sina:
"Hitler said if a lie is repeated often enough and long enough, it would come to be perceived as truth. One such lie often repeated is “Islam is the fastest growing religion”.
Despite the fact that Muslims by virtue of being poor and uneducated are much more reproductive than others, Islam as a religion is not growing but dying fast.
More and more Muslims are discovering that the violence evinced by some of their coreligionists is not an aberration but is inspired by the teachings of the Quran and the examples set by its author. Muslims are becoming disillusioned with Islam. They find out that the mechanistic ritual of praying five times per day, reciting verses that they do not understand and indeed mean nothing, getting up at taxing hours of the morning and abstaining from food and water until the sunset are not means to becoming more spiritual but are instruments to control their mind. These enlightened Muslims no more heed to the fear mongering verses of the Quran that threaten to burn them and roast them in the fires of hell if they dare to think and question the validity of that book.
Every day thousands of Muslim intellectuals are leaving Islam. They find Islam inconsistent with science, logics, human rights and ethics. Millions of Iranians already have left Islam. The enlightened Muslims of other nationalities are not far behind. This is the beginning of a mass exodus from Islam. It is a movement that is already in motion and nothing can stop it.
However the exodus from Islam is not reserved to the intellectuals but also the average Muslims are finding that Islam is not the way to God but to ignorance, poverty and wars. They are leaving Islam to embrace other religions especially the Christianity.
Perhaps it is best to listen to the truth coming from the mouth of the horse. The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."
What Muslims say among each other, is not the same thing that they say for the consumption of the Westerners.
These are huge numbers. If this trend continues we can expect to see Islam become insignificant in Africa in just a few decades. This is good news for those who are concerned about the on going slavery in Africa and the prospects of war and genocide.
In fact with the weakening of Islam, we can hope to see peace in many war-ridden parts of the world including Palestine. By now it should be clear that any road map to peace between Israel and Palestine will be blocked by the Islamists and the terrorists. Peace in Middle East is not possible as long as Islam is the ideology of the masses.
It is important that we realize that this terrorism that is threatening the peace of the world and these wars that bleed the Muslim nations are not economically motivated but are they are hate motivated. They are religious wars. The weakening of Islam means peace for mankind.
Al Qataani and al Jazeera Network were alarmed by these huge numbers of Muslims leaving Islam, but humanity must rejoice over these numbers. The weakening of Islam means the triumph of mankind."
Posted by: champ at February 3, 2008 9:11 PM
'saracen'
you. are. a. liar.
Mohammed Hegazy and his wife show that you are liar.
The death of Mrs Shereen shows you are a liar.
The judicial murder of Sol Hachuel, Jewess, aged 17, in Morocco in 1834, says you are a damned liar. Go on. Look it up.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=48
And then, if you dare, if you bloody well dare, come back here and have the abominable cheek to tell us she 'deserved' to die, under your lovely, 'perfect', wonderful sharia law (SPIT!!!).
The recorded history of all the dhimmi peoples, from Spain to India, shows you are a damnable liar.
Dhimmitude was a living hell. JIZYA was imposed with gross cruelty, with acts of deliberate, horrible humiliation upon those being forced to pay it. The dhimma is one of the most hideous systems of sacralised, institutionalised, gross and ugly INJUSTICE and CRUELTY that has ever been inflicted by one group of human beings upon another group.
Islam - Islam of the Quran, the Sira, the Hadith - is a Religion of the Lie. It tries to turn its adherents into unthinking, unquestioning, slaves of the Lie.
Please. Go. away. Go away. Go away. I am sick of your lies.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 3, 2008 9:17 PM
dumbledoresarmy- The only way I'll ever take you seriously, is if you show me documentary evidence from the Quran and the hadith and the historical books which show Islam treated people as badly as you say they are. I will not accept some qoute from an anti-Islamic website because its whole existence is to lie about Islam. It doesn't matter where you get your evidence from by the grace of the almighty I'll have an answer for you.
Your earlier post was regarding the treatment of apostates in Egypt. From what I know, Egypt is a secular state. It is a Muslim nation with largely secular laws. I can't deny there is discrimination in Egypt or other Muslim nations for that matter regarding other religions. But this happens everywhere in today's world, not just in Muslim countries. I seriously doubt that Christians are treated in such a way in Egypt because there would have been a worldwide outcry. Isolated incidents are more likely. But the article is not about Christians its about apostates. The Punishment for apostasy in Islam is a subject that I have minimal knowledge of and my research has given me two conflicting accounts. Add to that the fact the Quran does not detail a punishment for apostasy and how serious a sin it is for me to say something which is not Islamic, I'll opt to leave the matter for now.
But what I do know is that everyone sees it as an act that is only present in Islamic societies. That's maybe true but if the West wasn't secular and imposed Christian laws; apostates and heretics alike would surely be burnt at the stake.
In all honesty apostates are not looked at with much love in all three religions. Do your research and you'll know this.
Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."
17:2 [This is what you must do] when you discover a man or woman doing evil in the eyes of God your Lord in one of the settlements that God your Lord is giving you. [That person] will have violated [God's] covenant
17:3 by going and worshiping or bowing down to the sun, moon or other heavenly bodies, whose [worship] I prohibited.
17:4 When it is told to you, you must listen and carefully interrogate [the witnesses]. If the accusation is established to be true, and this revolting practice has been done in Israel,
17:5 you shall take that man or woman who did the wicked act out to your gates. You shall then pelt the man or woman to death with stones."
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5
So explain to me dumbledoresarmy what these verses mean exactly?
Jesus Christ did command his followers to follow all the teachings of the bible from the OT to the NT didn't he?
And champ surely you can do better than give me a qoute by Ali Sina.
(1) Is he a muslim?
(2) Isn't he an apostate and a staunch critic of Islam?
Give me an unbiased source and I'll discuss anything.
at February 3, 2008 9:57 PM
from thesaracen...
"It doesn't matter where you get your evidence from by the grace of the almighty I'll have an answer for you."
Then he says..."Give me an unbiased source and I'll discuss anything." I think he just said it all...any further attempts at "discussion " are pointless.
Have you folks ever tried arguing with a Flat-earther? No amount of evidence, no matter how obviously true, as in, video attached, or documentation of any kind is gonna convince this fanatic of anything.
If it puts Islam in a bad light of any kind, it's a lie, fabrication or distortion created by some hater of Islam.
He says I'm a shit critic, and I am a critic of Islam. He said it...I didn't...but I think he's right.
And the fact is kid...this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and, unlike Islamic governments, we don't perform the barbarisms that most certainly were once common in the Christian world and advocated by the Bible. (One grows tired of repeating this.) We advanced beyond that. However, the practitioners of Islam have made no such advancement. One sees on a daily basis in those countries run according to Islamic law clear evidence of that. Evidence thesaracen will never see or acknowledge.
I'm done barking back at this barking dog. I feel silly for doing so up to now. Now that he has stated clearly that no amount of evidence will ever sway him...what's the point? I'll let others state the obvious to him and he can deny being obscene to them. Here's a little fact for you kid...the word "shit" is an obscenity...maybe not in your little world, but amongst civilized people it is. The repeated use of that word in your posts makes them "obscenity laced." Deny THAT along with every other fact presented to you.
at February 3, 2008 10:39 PM
thesaracen - surely you don't think that you're the only Muslim that reads JW do you? Get over yourself, dude.
Posted by: champ at February 3, 2008 11:09 PM
DDA mentioned an awesome book several days ago entitled, "People Of The Lie", and here is an insightful excerpt from that book:
"The central defect of 'the evil' is not the sin, but the refusal to acknowledge it."
"More often than not these people will be looked at as solid citizens. How can that be? How can they be evil and not designated as criminals? The key word is designated. They are criminals in that they commit crimes against life and liveliness...their crimes are so subtle and covert that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again throughout the rest of this book. It is the basis for the title People of the Lie."
"Evil deeds do not make an evil person. Otherwise we would all be evil. If evil people cannot be defined by the illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins, then how are we to define them? The answer is by the consistency of their sins. While usually subtle, their destructiveness is remarkably consistent. This is because those who have crossed over the line are characterized by their absolute refusal to tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness."
"The poor in spirit do not commit evil. Evil is not committed by people who feel uncertain about their righteousness, who question their own motives, who worry about betraying themselves. The evil of this world is committed by the spiritual fat cats, by the Pharisee's of our own day, the self-righteous who think they are without sin because they are unwilling to suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination. It is out of their failure to put themselves on trial that their evil arises. They are, in my experience remarkably greedy people."
"A predominant characteristic of the behavior that I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection."
"Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them. They seem to live lives that are above reproach. The words image, appearance and outwardly are crucial to understanding the morality of 'the evil'. While they lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their goodness is all on a level of pretense. It is in effect a lie. Actually the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. We lie only when we are attempting to cover up something we know to be illicit. At one and the same time 'the evil' are aware of their evil and desperately trying to avoid the awareness. We become evil by attempting to hide from ourselves. The wickedness of 'the evil' is not committed directly, but indirectly as a part of this cover-up process. Evil originates not in the absence of guilt but in the effort to escape it."
"It often happens then that 'the evil' may be recognized by its very disguise. Because they are such experts at disguise, it is seldom possible to pinpoint the maliciousness of 'the evil'. The disguise is usually impenetrable."
"They are not pain avoiders or lazy people in general. To the contrary, they are likely to exert themselves more than most in their continuing effort to obtain and maintain an image of respectability. They may willingly, even eagerly, undergo great hardships in their search for status. It is only one particular pain they cannot tolerate: the pain of their own conscience, the pain of realization of their own sinfulness and imperfection."
"They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others."
"Those who are evil are masters of disguise; they are not apt to wittingly disclose their true colors - either to others or to themselves. It is not without reason that the serpent is renowned for his subtlety. We therefore cannot pass judgment on a person for a single act. Instead judgment must be made on the basis of a whole pattern of acts as well as their manner and style."
"Think of the psychic energy required for the continued maintenance of the pretense so characteristic of 'the evil'! They perhaps direct at least as much energy into their devious rationalizations and destructive compensations as the healthies do into loving behavior. Why? What possesses them, drives them? Basically, it is fear. They are terrified that the pretense will break down and they will be exposed to the world and to themselves."
"Evil people would be distinguished by these traits:
"1.) Consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which may often be quite subtle.
2.) Excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury.
3.) Pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of lifestyle but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives.
4.) Intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophrenic-like disturbance of thinking at times of stress."
at February 4, 2008 12:05 AM
Saracen thinks the world has just now caught on to their act.
" Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations,rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws and grinding them with their iron teeth;that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining;that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind."
John Wesley from The Doctrine of Original Sin (1841)
Posted by: pismopal at February 4, 2008 12:27 AM
thesaracen said:
The only way I'll ever take you seriously, is if you show me documentary evidence from the Quran and the hadith and the historical books which show Islam treated people as badly as you say they are. I will not accept some qoute from an anti-Islamic website because its whole existence is to lie about Islam.
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”
Bukhari:V1B11N626 “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr. If they knew the reward they would come to (the mosque) even if they had to crawl. I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.’”
Bukhari:V3B46N717 "Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army."
Bukhari:V5B59N448 “They (besieged Jews from Qurayza) then surrendered to the Prophet’s judgment but he directed them to Sa’d to give the verdict. Sad said, ‘I give my judgment that their men should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.’”
Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive.”
Ishaq:403 “Allah killed twenty-two polytheists at Uhud.”
Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”
Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The poets who were left spread in all directions.”
Tabari VII:85 “Muhammad killed many Quraysh polytheists at Badr.”
Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.”
Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”
Tabari VIII:40 “The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.”
Tabari VIII:141 “The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: ‘Kill! Kill! Kill!’”
Tabari VIII:181 “The Messenger ordered six men and four women to be assassinated. One of these women was Hind, who swore allegiance and became a Muslim.”
Tabari IX:13 “Muhammad turned to see Umm, a pregnant woman, who said, ‘O Messenger! Kill those [Muslims] who flee from you as you kill those who fight you, for they deserve death. Here is my dagger. If any come near me I will rip them up and slit open their belly with it.’”
Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”
thesaracen continued:
It doesn't matter where you get your evidence from by the grace of the almighty I'll have an answer for you.
Errr, yeah. Right. [yawn]
at February 4, 2008 1:57 AM
The worst Hell I can imagine would be to be forced to argue with fatuously sophistical and doggedly slippery Muslims like thesaracen for eternity.
Posted by: cantor at February 4, 2008 2:36 AM
cantor is right, let's make it easier and quicker for thesaracen, and make it multiple choice:
A) Those are not accurate quotes; there is no way to translate Arabic to any other language.
B) None of us was there. Therefore we don't know that any of this actually happened.
C) Those quotes are all taken out of context; in the right context, they show how peaceful and tolerant Mohammad was, and Islam is.
D) The worldwide Jewish conspiracy inserted those quotes into an otherwise peaceful and loving religion.
E) We (critics of Islam) are all "Islamophobics". We don't have an advanced degree in Religious Studies, therefore whatever we say is meaningless. We are Christianist right-wing extremists.
F) This website must be shut down. This conversation must be censored.
G) All of the above.
at February 4, 2008 2:50 AM
"As much as you'll disagree, VERY FEW Muslims believe they have to force non-believers to convert, well they have obviously misunderstood. Have they not?
Posted by: thesaracen "
...heck, Muslims have recently been converting dead people....what's up with that?.....forced conversion without resistence?....
at February 4, 2008 6:02 AM
"As much as you'll disagree, VERY FEW Muslims believe they have to force non-believers to convert, well they have obviously misunderstood. Have they not?
Posted by: thesaracen "
Muhammad said: 'Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory', and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger' (Muslim 31:5917)
"Forced conversions persist among extremists. Recently in Egypt, a Christian girl was kidnapped and told that she would be raped if she did not convert. Another notable case was the kidnapping and forced videotaped conversion of two FOX reporters in Gaza in September, 2006. Neither of these examples of forced conversion was condemned by Islamic organizations, even in the West.
Since Muslims believe so sincerely that their religion is truth, they often can't help but feel, on some level, that forced conversion is more of a favor done to the subject - a case of the end justifying the means, which explains the lack of passion.
Another point to keep in mind on this issue is the distinction between speaking and believing. Although Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers until they say they believe in Allah, Muhammad well knew that belief itself can't be forced (ie. "there is no compulsion in religion" - an early Medinan verse that is liberally quoted by Muslim apologists, who prefer to ignore the later, more numerous verses of intolerance).
But once a conquered person outwardly converts to Islam under the strain of taxes and discrimination, they are not allowed to recant upon penalty of death. Their children must also be raised Muslim. And, if they aren't, then it is a sign of apostasy. This is how Islam managed to spread so successfully within conquered populations to ratios in the high 90th percentiles over native religion."
....forced conversions are acceptable in Islam,in fact, where every Muslims encounter Non Muslims...it becomes mandatory....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 4, 2008 6:19 AM
...there is violence in the Bible and there is violence in the QUR"an, but there is a difference,
"Do your research and you'll know this.
Posted by: thesaracen "
OK
TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:
Flying Hijacked Planes into Glass Houses
A response to the American Muslim article:
Throwing Stones at the Qur'an from a Glass House
In an article entitled, ?Throwing Stones at the Qur'an from a Glass House?, The American Muslim claims that the verses of violence and war in the Bible can be misread in ?exactly the same way as some verses in the Qur?an? (emphasis ours). In other words, the on-line magazine alleges that there are Biblical verses with open-ended commands to violence that are not bound to historical context within the passage itself, as is often the case in the Qur?an.
Our first clue that this probably isn?t true is the scarcity of Christian terrorist groups. Not too many people are losing their heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus (or Moses, Buddha or the many Hindu gods either) as they are to shouts of ?Allah Akbar!? That there are so many Islamic terrorist groups composed of fundamentalists (or purists) of the Muslim faith is enough to impress any reasonable person that there is something far more dangerous about Islam.
Nevertheless, to support their claim, The American Muslim quotes sixteen of the worst passages that the Bible has to offer in the way of violence. Others are alluded to as well, but delving into these particular verses should be a large enough sample to expose whatever sophistry might be at play.
Their first try is a passage from Deuteronomy that might appear to command present-day believers to take a city by force and slaughter the inhabitants on order from God:
?When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes? (Deuteronomy 20:10-17 - As quoted by The American Muslim)
Except for the part about sparing women and children, this sounds similar to a verse from the Qur?an:
And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. (Sura 17:16)
But, in fact, the Biblical passage is not an open-ended command, but instead, a story of history bound within the text. Having trouble seeing this? That?s because the author of The American Muslim piece cleverly left out this part of the passage:
?Completely destroy them?the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites?as the LORD your God has commanded you?
Yes, it turns out that this was a specific command, given at a specific time to the tribe of Israel concerning a discrete target. This is why Christians and Jews do not treat these verses as present-day imperatives.
Strategic omission is just one way that Muslim apologists manipulate Biblical passages. (In this case, The American Muslim editors did not even include an ellipsis in place of the omission, since it may have raised the suspicions of the reader).
The next passage that The American Muslim claims promotes violence is from the apostle Paul, who writes:
?Hymenaeus and Alexander I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.? (1Timothy 1:20)
The violence in the passage is not exactly evident from this reading. In the context of the previous verse, these two men ?suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith,? but there is nothing to indicate that they were physically harmed as a result. It was the practice of the early Church to excommunicate apostates, and there is every reason to believe that this was the ?fate? of these two individuals. They were expelled from the Church by Paul. The Christian Church does not advocate killing apostates.
Contrast this with the words of Muhammad:
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)
Not much ambiguity there. Abu Bakr, the first caliph and several other Muslims narrated that Muhammad had indeed put Muslim apostates to death. For this reason, the practice is coded in Islamic law.
The next passage that is supposed to inspire Christians to violence is the recounting of David?s victory against the Philistines:
?This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it.... And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.? (1 Samuel 17:46 - As Quoted by The American Muslim)
This is actually parts of verse 46 through 54. We won?t waste much time here, because it is apparent that this is a recounting of an historical event. The omitted passages from within the text make it even more obvious.
Compare this to the word of Allah in Sura 8:12: ?I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.?
There is no historical context to mitigate this Qur?anic exhortation either in the verse or in those that surround it. (The American Muslim actually makes a monumental effort to bring historical context to the verse from sources external to the Qur?an in this article, which contains several inaccuracies regarding the justification for attacking caravans, the timing of the ?revelation? of the verse, and the fate of hostages taken in battle, some of whom were actually put to death).
The next five passages quoted by The American Muslim, in trying to make the case that the Bible can be used to command violence, all suffer from the same problems as above:
?Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, ?Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.?... And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put you to death with the sword.? Now therefore hold him not guiltless, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.? (2 Samuel 16:9, 1 Kings 2:8)
? When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, ?Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring.? (2 Samuel 4:7)
"That is not true. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim, called Sheba the son of Bichri, has lifted up his hand against King David; give up him alone, and I will withdraw from the city.? And the woman said to Joab, ?Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall.? Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab." (2 Samuel 20:21)
"at Jezreel by this time tommorrow...And when the letter came to them, they took the king?s sons, and slew them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When the messenger came and told him, ?They have brought the heads of the king?s sons,? he said, ?Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.?. (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 6) ?God has now fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Elijah. So Jehu put to death all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, as well as all of his close friends and priests, until he had left not one single survivor.? (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 10) ?He put to death all of Ahab?s house, who were left there and so blotted it out, in fulfillment of the word which YAHWEH had spoken to Elijah." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 7)
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)
No doubt these were bad days to be particular individuals by the name of Shimei, Ishbosheth, Sheba or Ahab, but they obviously aren?t around anymore to complain. Same with the tribes mentioned in the passage from Deuteronomy. This is history, of course, not some open-ended instruction like:
?Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other.? (Sura 48:29)
At this point, The American Muslim pulls two verses out of the New Testament Gospels. The first is quoted as if they are the words of Jesus:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)
But, in fact, this is the tail end of a parable being told by Jesus. The words actually belong to one of the characters in his story.
Contrast this with the actual words of Muhammad:
[Allah's Apostle said] "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." (Bukhari 52:256)
We don?t have to play the same games here that The American Muslim does to try and convince Christians that they should kill based on the words of a parable. Not only are these Muhammad?s own words, but there are many Muslims at this very moment who are trying to kill Jews in Israel. Their religious leaders quote this passage to inspire them.
Moving along to the second New Testament verse that supposedly advocates violence:
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)
Though not quoted in the article, the passage actually goes on to say, ?Your enemies will be the members of your own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. ?
Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the coming hardships that will be suffered by Christians (ironically, the worst abusers eventually turned out to be the Muslims). The ?sword? is a metaphor for the persecution against believers, not an admonition for them to take up arms. In fact, he elsewhere prevented one of his disciples from fighting on his behalf and rebuked him for doing so. In confirmation of this, none of his immediate followers formed an armed militia of any sort. There were no armies claiming to be ?Christian? for many centuries.
By contrast, Muhammad was a military leader who killed people in battle, executed captives and enslaved women and children. When he said that ?Jihad in the way of Allah elevates the position of a man in paradise? (Sahih Muslim 20:4645), his followers knew what he meant. They engaged in warfare following his death, which continues to this day.
The American Muslim then moves back to the Old Testament:
?I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.? (Exodus 23:27)
Is this an open-ended imperative for present-day Christians and Jews?
Hardly. Here?s the next verse:
?I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way?
Again, not a good time to be a Hivate, Hittite, or a Canaanite? but who is these days?
By contrast, the Qur?an speaks ill of Christians, Jews, ?unbelievers? and ?pagans,? and commands its readers to ?slay the infidel wherever ye find him.? The historical context of the verse is apparently not all that conspicuous, judging by the fact that so many Muslims are trying so hard to kill these people in the name of Allah.
The American Muslim tries again:
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. At God?s instructions, the Israelites ?utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones? leaving ?none to remain.? And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. (Deuteronomy 2:33-36)
At this point, you can probably guess that there is something being left out. If you look at the original passage, you?ll find that it refers to the Battle of Jahaz and even says ?at that time? (emphasizing that this is history - not edict).
Next is this passage from Joshua:
Joshua said to the people of Israel, ?The Lord has given you the city of the all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the treasury of the Lord. The people utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 6:21-23)
The manipulation of the original passage is so extensive that the verse is barely recognizable. The author employs both omission and juxtaposition to try and emphasize that the city in question was destroyed. In fact, the original does say that not everyone within the city was killed. Even so, this is still a violent passage? but it is not open-ended instruction.
The city in question was Jericho, and the verses tell of the battle between the ancient Israelites and the inhabitants therein. It is obviously a historical passage, and it no more inspires violence than reading an account of the Japanese attack on the people of Nanjing in 1937.
The American Muslim then pulls a verse from the Old Testament that it says can be interpreted to mean that apostates should be stoned:
"And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, ...and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die." (Deuteronomy 17:3-5)
What does the ellipsis leave out, you may be wondering? Well, it turns out that this was yet another specific command handed down to a specific people at a specific time:
?If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death?
No Christian in their right mind would kill someone for worshipping a different god based on this passage. Apostates have been killed in sporadic and rare historical incidents, but it was not the example of Jesus, nor is it a part of Christian teaching.
As we have already pointed out, however, Islam?s most reliable Hadith mandates the execution of apostates from Islam. It is firmly established in Islamic law, since it is the example set forth by Muhammad himself.
The American Muslim then submits a rare New Testament verse as proof that Christians can interpret the Bible as a command to murder (in the way that Jihadis wage holy war):
"Although they know God?s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:20-32)
It is unclear why the author cites verses 20-32 but only quotes the last verse. The full text of the passage actually contains a rebuke against killing and it assigns judgment to God alone. The next verses in sequence confirm this:
?You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment??
God is the judge, and not man, according to the context of this passage. How anyone is supposed to interpret this to mean exactly the opposite - that they should kill another human being - is a leap of logic that escapes this writer (and generations of Christians as well, apparently).
Muhammad?s own words, however, contain no such hidden message:
?Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.? (Sura 2:216)
Now, at last, The American Muslim pulls out the grand finale ? the famous passage from Numbers that is quoted so enthusiastically by the detractors of Western religion:
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.? (Numbers 31:17-18)
From the way this is quoted, it sounds as if God is telling today's Bible-thumpers to kill every man within reach and enslave women and children. What a horrible world this would be if Christians took this fragment literally and killed the nearest person.
So why aren?t the Jews and Christians of today doing this?
Well, it's most likely because there aren't any Midianites around, since that was the unfortunate tribe on which this vengeance is specifically commanded in the surrounding verses. Again, this is a historical narration that clearly refers to an obscure tribe, unlike many of the open-ended passages of violence against unbelievers, ?idolaters,? polytheists and Christians found in the Qur?an.
Contemporary Islamic apologists, such as the author of this American Muslim piece, apparently borrowed this research from secular critics of Christianity, who use passages such as these to make dark insinuations about the character of the god of the Bible and thus bolster their rejection of all religion.
This certainly makes for some strange bedfellows, given that most atheists would concur that the god of Muhammad is far more violent than the god of the New Testament. (Those who may not agree are free to travel to a Muslim country and see how publicly denying Allah there compares to Christian tolerance at home, but they may want to make out their will beforehand).
We?ll leave it to the theologians to respond, since the character of God and the nature of progressive revelation falls outside the scope of this discussion. Our only interest here is in the argument that Muslims are trying to make by citing such passages.
Since Muslims do not argue the point that Muhammad commanded the slaughter and enslavement of others at various times in his last ten years (a practice that his followers have faithfully applied to this very day), their logic here is quite tenuous. At best, these apologists appear to be trying to bring other religions down to the level of Islam, particularly Christianity.
What makes this noteworthy is that Christians and others do not act, in turn, as if they need to bring Islam down to their religion of choice. The reason is that no other religion regularly kills members of every other faith explicitly in the name its god. And, on the rare occasions when this does happen, the response is anger and denouncement, rather than the general indifference that Muslims have for Islamic terror (aside from the 15% who openly endorse it).
Islamic terrorists wage holy war on a daily basis because it is the literal command of the Qur?an. Western Muslim apologists, concerned solely with the image of Islam, window-dress these violent passages through a complex series of appeals to a patchwork of external Muslim sources.
Then, after delicately arranging the products of this Herculean charade in such a way as to convince the rest of us that these Qur?anic verses of violence are not what they appear, the apologist then steps back, wipes the sweat from his brow and says, ?See how clear it is? No Muslim could possibly interpret this command to kill as a command to kill.?
Well, why are these verses in the Qur?an at all, then? If they are supposed to be history, then why do they appear as imperative? Why isn?t the context right there in the text, as it is in the Old Testament?
After all, this is supposed to be Allah?s perfect book. The Qur?an is relentlessly circulated around the word in stand-alone fashion, rarely accompanied by these external sources or words of caution against taking it literally.
Lacking a decent answer to these questions, Muslims attack the Bible instead.
at February 4, 2008 6:26 AM
"Violence in the Bible and the Qur'an
A Christian Perspective
After the events of September 11th, the issue of violence and religion has once again come into intense discussions and debate. As soon as Christians and others of good will condemn the Islamic justification and foundation for resorting to violence in the name of God—justifications found both in the Qur'an and the life of prophet Muhammad—we are quickly told that the Bible (especially the Old Testament scriptures) and Christian history are also filled with violence and that we should not single out Islam or the Qur'an in this regard.
For example, Fareed Zakaria, in his report in Newsweek, entitled "Why they hate us: The roots of Islamic rage—and what we can do about it" writes, "The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare."
How can Christians respond to such counter-charges? Are Christians and their scriptures no different than Muslim terrorists and others who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies? What can we say in light of our own dark Church history and also graphic passages found in portions of the Old Testament that do not seem to cast any better light on the roots and actions of our own faith tradition? The following are some of my reflections on these questions. Time does not allow me to develop each point fully, but I hope that they can be of some help and bring some clarification to these issues.
As Christians we must be very emphatic that Christians have and continue to do many shameful things in the name of Christ, BUT the issue is this: Christians who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies have no justification for their actions from Jesus Christ, his life and teachings as found in the New Testament. Whereas, Muslims who are engaged in violence and destruction of anyone who opposes Islam, have ample justification for their actions from the Qur'an and the life and sayings of prophet Muhammad. It is beyond the scope of this paper to quote verses and passages from the Qur'an, the Hadith and biographies of prophet Muhammad (the reader can refer to other articles on this web site, e.g. in the sections Muhammad and his enemies or Islam & Terrorism), but suffice it to say that it is beyond doubt that the prophet of Islam did encourage the killing and intimidation of his enemies, not just in self defense as it is commonly reported by Muslims, but in the promotion of the cause of God and the spread of Islam. Needless to say, the actions of the prophet were in direct contradiction to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ and his disciples. So the point is not that Christians have never resorted to violence and other horrible atrocities. They have indeed committed many horrible acts, but when they have done this, they have betrayed the very person that they claim to follow. But when Muslims commit such acts, they can in fact claim that they are following the example of their prophet and thus fulfilling the will of God and promoting His cause. That, certainly, is a big difference!
When we turn our attention to the Old Testamet and look at passages that are found in the book of Joshua regarding the extermination of the Canaanites living in the land, we can still notice a dramatic difference in those passages and the events in the early history of Islam. The primary theme in those accounts is the issue of God's holiness. Even hundreds of years before the invasion of Canaan, God had told Abraham that the sins of the people living in the land had not reached its limit, but when the inhabitants had defiled the land to its limit, the land was going to "throw them up." In fact, God later warned the nation of Israel to be careful in not repeating the sins of the previous people, otherwise the land was going to throw them up too. So we see that God is using Israel as an instrument of His justice to purge the land of its sinfulness and later in history God used other nations like the Assyrians and the Babylonians as His instruments to cleanse the land by destroying the people of Israel for their sinfulness.
However, when one reads the early accounts of prophet Muhammad's raids and wars, not only one sees no mention of the theme of divine holiness and its opposition to sin, but the primary motivations that one constantly encounters are the looting of the enemies and the obtaining of booty and the spoils of war or the relief and pleasures of Paradise or conquering the enemies and spreading the rule of the prophet. I am not just repeating an old stereotypical charge against Islam. I have just finished reading the most ancient Muslim biography of prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era (translated by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955). I truly encourage all Muslims and non-Muslims to read this book to see for themselves the violence in the actions of prophet Muhammad and his early followers.
Another important point that we need to keep in mind is the fact that the divine command for the destruction of the few cities of Canaan, was for a specific people, a specific time and place and a specific purpose. Nowhere in the later Old Testament period do we see God commanding the nation of Israel to go and attack other pagan nations, either as self-defense or as a way to promote faith in the true God of heaven and earth. However, in the Qur'an, we encounter general commands to kill and destroy the enemies of Islam that are applicable for all times and places and people groups. It is beyond dispute that from the earliest times, right after the death of the prophet, Muslim splinter groups began fighting, killing and assassinating even each other, in the name of God. The history of Islam, down to the present day is filled with the appeals of various Muslims to ever-applicable Qur'anic passages to destroy and kill their enemies.
I would like to conclude this brief article by using a popular Islamic analogy. Muslims generally believe that since Islam is the final great monotheistic religion, it is superior in every respect to Judaism and Christianity. Living in the Middle East and growing up in a Muslim country, we were always told that Judaism was like elementary school, Christianity was like high school and Islam is like university. Each religion was from God, but each one became progressively higher and better. Now the question that we must ask is this, how can Islam claim to have a superior ethics to the New Testament, and yet resort back to the use and justification of violence, elements that were supposedly part of the early Jewish tradition? It seems that Islam not only has not improved on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament in regard to the use of force, but that in fact Islam has gone back many steps in this regard."
at February 4, 2008 6:51 AM
Can you explain why these violent and intolerant verses are in Deuteronomy?
Unlike Islam there is no open order to kill in the Bible.
Yahweh only instructed his people to fight during a 60 year period of the 6000 chronicled and predicted in the Bible. The villain was always the same-those who practiced and promoted the Canaanite religion in the tiny sliver of land He gave the Jews. He knew that if they continued, they would poison and damn their subjects - millions of them. And they would in turn terrorize and destroy the people He chose for His revelation. It was actually the most compassionate thing to do. Had the Jews done what they were told, it would have been like killing the first 250,000 Nazis to keep them from starting a war that would kill 50 million.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 4, 2008 6:53 AM
I quoted Deuteronomy 17:2-5 and Deuteronomy 13:6-9, do they also apply to a group of people in ancient history?
You say it was Paul who expelled the punishment for apostatsy. Paul!!! Not Jesus? Was Paul Christ, was he the messenger. Strange one that.
All the more proof of the authenticity of Islam. You won't find Prophet Muhammed pbuh telling Muslims not to follow a command from God.
Didn’t Jews attempt to kill him aswell? The same Paul who invented the belief of trinity?
So why not get rid of the passages, what use are they to you if you won’t abide by them?
Just answer these questions no need to write an essay.
I'll give you my answers to the points you raised on the Quran the hadith and these myths about Muslims.
at February 4, 2008 6:53 PM
Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.”
- posted by special_guest
Rendered blind in one eye initially, metaphorically, but blinded fully by deceit finally, then Islam stumbled in evil darkness ever since. Killing blindly is what they had come to do best in their evil cult of their warlord's (pbuh) belief, stooping so low they kill using innocent Down's women...
Can it sink into darkness any lower?
at February 4, 2008 9:44 PM
thesaracen,
If you want to be taken seriously by us, you must do your homework.
Your homework:
1) read ALL the posts above addressed to you
2) if you disagree with them, write a detailed refutation using arguments and evidence, no less than 100 words per post
3) bow your head so we can strike it with a stick then open your mouth so we can spit in it, before you pay us your Muslim tax.
4) Got that?
Dismissed!
Posted by: cantor at February 4, 2008 11:59 PM
'theserpent' always slithers out of legitimate questions by answering them with poisonous namecalling, scapegoating; and by using smoke-and-mirrors as he attempts to pawn off his lies upon 'theastute'. Watching a snake recoil from a fight has never been more enjoyable.
Posted by: champ at February 5, 2008 3:10 AM
Even if I wrote an 1,000 page refutation you'll still say im lying and using deception but heck I'll answer exgstbrown's copied and pasted arguments anyway. But when I do don't come back with the same arguments.
I've also noticed how you've developed a way of refuting any answer a muslim gives to your questions. How ingenious. You've invented a list of possible outcomes, which is easily indentifiable. It's only a rod for your own ignorance to prevail and it won't harm me in the slightest if you think I'm lying just because of a list.
As I said I've got all the knowledge I need to answer your questions but I won't write a 7 page essay so bare with me.
and champ who's recoiling like a snake. I asked a question which none of you can answer. Why don't you oblige and answer it?
Posted by: thesaracen at February 5, 2008 2:00 PM
Thesaracen,
You at least said one correct thing:
"All the more proof of the authenticity of Islam. You won't find Prophet Muhammed pbuh telling Muslims not to follow a command from God."
Yeah, that gets proven every single day, around the world. So much for this vaunted "free will" theory of yours.
BTW, why are you using the word GOD? Your il-lah's name is Allah.
Just wondering....
at February 5, 2008 4:22 PM
theborrower says: "and champ who's recoiling like a snake."
Good Mohammadean! Steeling someone else's line must make allah (twit) very proud.
Mohammad was a borrower and a theif too, so Mo taught you well. Since Islam began, Mohammad has been borrowing stories and religious material from other religions and repeating them as the Quran. Primarily, Mohammad borrowed from Judaism and Christianity; so borrowing/steeling must be in your blood, eh.
Posted by: champ at February 5, 2008 4:53 PM
Howdy, Champ!
Silly me. I thought Groundhog Day was just a movie.
Posted by: boneshack at February 5, 2008 5:38 PM
Hi Boneshack! And a good movie at that! :-) Oh, and today's my daughter's 25th birthday - Party on! ....where did the time go?
Posted by: champ at February 5, 2008 6:05 PM
I won't bother posting anything else on this website. How the hell anything gets through to you is beyond me.
You have to much pride for me to discuss Islam with you. You're adamant that Islam is wrong and will do anything in your power to fight it. I've trawled through everything you post that is regarding the Quran and all I see is you deceiving yourselves.
From the first moment I came on here thats what I saw and it's not just you its your idol aswell- Robert Spencer the not so famous Jew that waltzes around like he's the saviour. I see him go on chat shows and debates surrounded by his own kind without debating a Muslim of any note who will have him stuttering and mumbling in no time. The guys is a fraud.
Allah has warned you to believe because no other religion will do. No matter what you do you cannot and will not destroy Islam. You need more than a few jihadwatch contributors to destory Islam I'm afraid.
You will not be victorious because Allah has told you.
I will not waste my time with a bunch of people who think they are better and out of pride, arrogance, deception and hypocrisy refuse to take heed of the divine guidance. That's your loss.
You have more knowledge on the lies about Islam than you do about your own religion. Good luck to you.
May Allah swt guide you all to the right path.
Posted by: thesaracen at February 5, 2008 6:50 PM
Thesaracen,
Come on, bro, don't run off in a huff! If you do, then you only prove out point - that Islam is a fraud on humanity, and Muslims are blinded and brainwashed by the Qu'ran. You keep calling us unbendable. You, Sir, are the one who resorts to threats, name-calling, and tizzy fits.
Many of us have met you half way far too many times with DIRECT quotes from your noble sources, and you dismiss them outright as "lies."
I won't bother posting anything else on this website. How the hell anything gets through to you is beyond me.
But it most certainly does 'get through to us.' We can read and analyze your immutable texts through a process call critical thought.
You have to much pride for me to discuss Islam with you. You're adamant that Islam is wrong and will do anything in your power to fight it. I've trawled through everything you post that is regarding the Quran and all I see is you deceiving yourselves.
Yes, we're adamant that Islam is wrong. We are also very adamant, and convinced, that Muslims who follow pure Islamic dogma want all of us Infidels either converted, subjugated, or worse, dead. That isn't much of a deal. So, in reality, we are not deceived.
From the first moment I came on here thats what I saw and it's not just you its your idol aswell- Robert Spencer the not so famous Jew that waltzes around like he's the saviour. I see him go on chat shows and debates surrounded by his own kind without debating a Muslim of any note who will have him stuttering and mumbling in no time. The guys is a fraud.
Ah, the Jew card. How original. Robert is Catholic. I'll leave the rest of that paragraph as uninformed.
Allah has warned you to believe because no other religion will do. No matter what you do you cannot and will not destroy Islam. You need more than a few jihadwatch contributors to destory Islam I'm afraid.
No, we may not destroy Islam. Muslims will do that all by themselves. If you're going to debate here, you'd better be quite informed about the Holy Bible: There is no Allah in the OT/NT, nor is there any prophecy of Muhammed. We don't recognize the Qu'ran as any sort of "holy" authority. Save your condemnations for your fellow Muslims.
You will not be victorious because Allah has told you.I will not waste my time with a bunch of people who think they are better and out of pride, arrogance, deception and hypocrisy refuse to take heed of the divine guidance. That's your loss.
You have more knowledge on the lies about Islam than you do about your own religion. Good luck to you.
May Allah swt guide you all to the right path.
Divine guidance. From the fallen angel Lucifer. Sure.
But, hey, Saracen, before you run off and crow to all your buddies and your imam on how you defeated the evil Robert Spencer and all his infidel minions, let me ask you one final question? Okay?
Are you a good Muslim, or a hypocrite?
Posted by: boneshack at February 5, 2008 7:39 PM
There are certain traits a hypocryt has. I certainly have none of them. I haven't told you to do something I wouldn't do myself. So although I could always be stronger in my faith I am a good Muslim, but a hypocryt no. You and your freinds on the other hand possess hypocritical qaulities in abundance.
Posted by: thesaracen at February 5, 2008 7:59 PM
Thesaracen,
Thanks for the straight answer. And I will leave that affirmation for judgment for all other readers here, if they ever see it (before this thread gets moved into the archive.)
But, I say again, don't run off! If you have so much insight into Islam, why is it that you choose only one thread to start debates?
You do know, don't you, that there is a "sister" site to JW, call Dhimmi Watch? So much material here to comment on as well.
So, please, read each story posted at JW/DW, read the comments, and draw an intelligent conclusion.
Jew-baiting and ad hominems will get you nowhere.
Good night!
Posted by: boneshack at February 5, 2008 8:35 PM
"May Allah swt guide you all to the right path."
Allah is not the One True God, so I won't be looking for guidance from him now, or ever. No thank you!
"Why Allah cannot be the God of the Bible:
Islam's Quran and its own adopted practices prove that Allah cannot be the God of Christianity. In Arabic the word 'Allah' may mean 'god' but that does not mean Allah and the God of the Bible are one and the same.
They cannot be because:
Islam has come to mean 'submission'1. The goal of Islam is to bring the whole world into submission to Allah. The Quran (Sura's 2, 4, 5, 9 and 47) teaches that all 'infidels' (non-Muslims) must either convert to Islam or be killed or enslaved2. The God of the Bible tells us that conversion is the work of God, therefore no-one can be forced to convert to Christianity.
The Quran says God has no son and is not a father. It rejects the Trinitarian God of the Bible. Mohammad taught that Jesus and Christians were not to be taken as friends (Sura's 5 and 9).
Allah was the pagan moon god of Mohammed's Quresh tribe represented by various idols, including a sacred stone. The God of the Bible forbids idolatry!
Islam teaches the creation of a Muslim empire and the use of lethal force against opponents. The God of the Bible affirms that His kingdom is not of this world and commands that Christians love those who oppose them (John 18:34 and Matthew 5:44).
Mohammad, the founder of Islam and supposedly the last of God's prophets, performed no miracles. Jesus Christ the true Son of God and seal of all God's prophets performed many miracles - proving His claims to divinity. The God of the Bible performs miracles. The God of Islam is unconcerned with the human condition and has never miraculously demonstrated a loving concern for individuals.
Mohammad is declared a sinner in the Quran (Sura's 9, 40 and 48). Jesus Christ was and is sinless.
The Quran often contradicts the Bible. It denies that Jesus was God incarnate or that he died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins."
http://www.truthwatch.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=83
Posted by: champ at February 6, 2008 12:18 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)